Skip to main content
9:00 am
background check will greatly curtail the 40% of guns today bought illegally. host: senator chris murphy, a democrat, thank you so much for joining us this morning that's all for "washington journal." we will be back at 7:00 eastern time tomorrow and now we go to the floor of the house of representatives. the first-ever visit rebels -- resolution condemning the government of north korea for violations of the u.n. security council resolutions. the speaker pro tempore: the house will be in order. the chair lays before the house a communication from the speaker. the clerk: the speaker's room, washington, d.c., february 15, 2013. i hereby appoint the honorable jeff fortenberry to act as speaker pro tempore on this day. signed, john a. boehner,
9:01 am
speaker of the house of representatives. the speaker pro tempore: the prayer today will be offered our chaplain, father conroy. chaplain conroy: let us pray. god of the universe, thank you for giving us another day. quicken our spirits so that we will know the blessings of living together in unity and peace. we have our personal aspirations and ideas of what is best. grant that we might know the satisfaction of sharing our common concerns and experiencing the joy of mutual accomplishment. bless the members of the people's house with success in bringing fruition to all efforts, to work toward common solutions to the issues facing our nation, solutions which seems so distant in these days. during the days of the coming week, may the american people be able to communicate their
9:02 am
hopes for the efforts of their congress men and women. may they understand, as well, that a unified nation is equally the work of each of us where we live. may all that is done this day be for your greater honor and glory. amen. the speaker pro tempore: the chair has examined the journal of the last day's proceedings and announces to the house his approval thereof. pursuant to clause 1 of rule 1 the journal stands approved. the pledge of allegiance this morning will be led by the gentleman from pennsylvania, mr. cartwright. mr. cartwright: i pledge allegiance to the flag of the united states of america and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under god, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. the speaker pro tempore: the chair will entertain up to five requests for one-minute speeches on each side of the aisle.
9:03 am
for what purpose does the gentleman from colorado rise? >> mr. speaker, i rise to request unanimous consent to address the house for one minute and to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for one minute. >> mr. speaker, i had a career in the military with a combined 21 years between the united states army, the army reserve, the united states marine corps and the marine corps reserve. mr. coffman: i met so many extraordinary young men and women who served our country in uniform, who made tremendous sacrifices in defense of our freedom. i strongly believe that the highest expression of citizenship in america is exemplified by those who serve in our armed forces. in my hometown of aurora, colorado, i recently met young people who grew up in aurora, went to school in our community and know of no other country
9:04 am
than america. some of them want to join the military, but because of their immigration status they cannot. mr. speaker, i believe that they should be allowed to join and be given an opportunity to earn citizenship by serving our country, their country in the military. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. for what purpose does the gentleman from pennsylvania rise? mr. cartwright: i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: no objection, the gentleman is recognized. mr. cartwright: thank you, mr. speaker. i rise today in advance of the forward on climate rally this sunday here in washington, d.c. to support the thousands of people en route to this town right now and to urge this congress to keep environmental issues among our top priorities. as president obama stressed in his state of the union address
9:05 am
earlier this week, there is an undeniable trend of warmer climates and a rise in the frequency of natural disasters which cause devastation across this nation. we are headed in the wrong direction, and we need serious action to protect our planet. we can fight global warming while still growing our economy. we can do it by investing in clean renewable resources like wind and solar with equipment produced right here in the united states of america. by dealing seriously with environmental issues, we can boost our economy, decrease our reliance on foreign oil and leave a better world for our children. these should be our top priorities as members of congress, as citizens and as parents and it is time these issues receive the attention that they deserve. i yield the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. for what purpose does the
9:06 am
gentleman from utah rise? >> mr. speaker, i rise to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. >> today i rise in defense of the people of the utah. as i introduce the utah land and sovereignty act, a bill that will prohibit the establishment of monuments in utah except by the expressed authorization of congress. mr. stewart: mere than 60% of my state is controlled by the federal government. this is not uncommon in western states. and now we know that president obama intends to use the antiquities act to further extend these federal land grants. the former secretary of the interior suggested and encouraged him to do this. this is another example of the arrogance of the federal government and their attitude towards those of us in western states. it's time for the president to realize that federal land grabs have real consequences for real people. and i yield back my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. for what purpose does the
9:07 am
gentleman from georgia rise? mr. barrow: i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute and to revise and extend. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. barrow: thank you, mr. speaker. mr. speaker, i rise to honor the 50 years that terrell w. benton jr. has served at the state barf georgia. as one colleague put it, is the very model of what a lawyer should be. terrell benton believes that all deserve effective representation in our courts. that may be common today, but in 1964, my daddy's first year on the bench, not everybody felt that way. in that year terrell defended a black man the state was trying to put to death for killing a white man. he was convicted of a crime he was committed but he was spared the death penalty, thanks to terrell. that would have been no small feat for the most accomplished in that time and place, but considering that terrell was one year out of law school made it all the more remarkable. today terrell is general counsel of the three school districts and serves on a host
9:08 am
of civic boards. i know i speak for others when i thank him for his 50 years of service to our profession. with that, mr. speaker, i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. for what purpose does the gentleman from south carolina rise? mr. wilson: mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute and to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. wilson: mr. speaker, during tuesday night's state of the union address, the president spoke to the american people, and michael garcon in today's "washington post" said, quote, it was a pervasive lack of substance, end of quote. four years ago this month the president said the deficit was unsustainable but then proceeded to triple the deficit, putting american families at risk. sadly, his words do not reflect his actions. house republicans recognize the urgency in putting our fiscal house back to order. over $16 trillion in national debt is irresponsible. not only does it threaten senior citizens with the value
9:09 am
of the dollar but places burden on future generations and destroys job creation due to economic uncertainty. the path to prosperity is still achievable. now is the time for the president to change course and work with congress to secure solutions, enabling small businesses to create jobs. in conclusion, god bless our troops and we will never forget september 11 and the global war on terrorism. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. for what purpose does the gentleman from maryland rise? >> i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute and to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. hoyer: mr. speaker, we are on the brink of achieving the republican policy of sequester. why do i say it's the republican policy? because on july 19 of 2011, 229 republicans voted for their cut, cap and balance bill which said that the alternative to cutting spending in a rational way would be the irrational imposition of sequester which cuts across the board
9:10 am
irrespective of priorities. it's the wrong thing to do. it will hurt america. it will hurt our economy. it will hurt the growth in jobs, and i am here to tell you if democrats were in charge of the house of representatives, that sequester would not happen. we've been here six weeks and not a single piece of legislation has been brought to this floor by the majority to stop sequestration from happening. to substitute a rational fiscal policy for an irrational one. so when sequester hits, as unfortunately it may, as tragically it may, as unacceptably it may, the american people need to know this is republican policy included in legislation for which the 98% of them voted for in july of 2011. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. for what purpose does the
9:11 am
gentleman from arkansas rise? >> mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute and to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. >> thank you, mr. speaker. north korea's nuclear tests earlier this week signals an increasingly dangerous and defiant stance the united states and our allies must confront and defeat. a resolution before the house today condemns the north korean's government flagrant and repeated violations of multiple united nations security council resolutions and for its repeated provocations that threatens international peace and stability. i urge my colleagues to support this resolution, and i must add, the constraints we face in countering a nuclear north korea highlight the urgent need to prevent iran from obtaining nuclear weapons capabilities. mr. cotton: iran already exports murder around the world, props up regimes in syria and supports and sponsors terrorist organizations like hezbollah and hamas. imagine what iran would do when
9:12 am
acting under the umbrella of a nuclear deterrent. the united states already faces one outlaw regime with nuclear weapons. we cannot allow a second outlaw regime to join them. thank you. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. for what purpose does the gentlelady from california seek recognition? without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. -- the gentlelady is recognized for one minute. >> today i rise in support of a resolution authored by mr. lipinski of illinois honoring national engineering week. in his state of the union address, the president announced of educating students in the sciences, technology, engineering and math fields so they are prepared for high-tech and high-paying jobs for the future. stem education is vital for the economic growth of my district and for the nation. just atlanta month a new report found that in the past 11 years
9:13 am
high-tech jobs in my district and the surrounding areas have grown by 18.6%, many of these jobs requiring engineers and students to pursue stem education. yet, while most parents of school-age students believe that stem education should be a priority in the united states, only half agree it is actually a top priority. mrs. negrete mcleod: that's why i ask my colleagues to support national engineers week to raise awareness of stem education and its importance to our country's economic future. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady yields back. for what purpose does the gentleman from kansas rise? >> mr. speaker, i rise today to address the house for one minute and to revise and extend. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. >> thank you, mr. speaker. i rise today to recognize the 150th anniversary of the founding of impouria state university in impouria, kansas.
9:14 am
-- emporia state university in emporia, kansas. emporia state is much recognized today for its outstanding teachers college. one third of the degrees earned each year at emporia state are graduate degrees, the highest rate of any university in kansas. mr. huelskamp: today i join more than 5,900 current students and 75,000 alumni in congratulating emporia state university on its first 150 years and wish them the very best in the next 150 years. mr. speaker, i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. for what purpose does the gentleman from virginia rise? without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. scott: thank you, mr. speaker. our right to vote is the very foundation of our democracy. in passing the voting rights act, congress relied on an extensive record on
9:15 am
discrimination in voting. section 5 requires jurisdictions to submit changes in election laws to judges for prior approval. the areas covered by section 5 were covered the old-fashioned way. they earned it by implementing poll taxes, lit rass see taxes and other schemes. if the supreme court invalidate section 5 in shelby county v. holder it would essentially allow jurisdictions with a history of discrimination to implement any discriminatory voter scheme and meanwhile suffer under the discriminatory scheme until the court ruled. and then without section 5, those same jurisdictions could create another scheme and repeat the whole process. mr. speaker, at a time when america stakes its need to spread democracy around the world, we must ensure its
9:16 am
vitality here at home and ensure section 5 of the voting rights act. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. pursuant to clause 8 of rule 20, the chair will postpone further proceedings today on the motion to suspend the rules on which a recorded vote or the yeas and nays are ordered or on which the vote incurs objection under clause 6 of rule 20. . any recorded vote on the postponed question will be taken later. for what purpose does the gentleman from california seek recognition? >> mr. speaker, i mover that the house suspend the rules and pass house resolution 65, as amended. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the title of the resolution. the clerk: house resolution 65. resolution condemning the government of north korea for its flagrant and repeated violations of multiple united nations security council resolutions for its repeated provocation that is threaten international peace and stability, and for its february 12, 2013 test of a nuclear device.
9:17 am
the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from california, mr. royce, and the gentleman from new york, mr. engel, each will control 20 minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from california. mr. royce: mr. speaker, i'm going to ask unanimous consent if i could that all members may have five legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and to include extraneous materials on this resolution. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. million royce: thank you, mr. speaker. -- mr. royce: thank you, mr. speaker. i yield myself such time as i may consume. what i want to share with the body is that on february 12 of to 13 north korea successfully carried out a nuclear test, a test in flagrant violation of numerous international sanctions and of numerous agreements that north korea's paid in the past. this test, which is the third time that north korea has exploded a nuclear device, is a stark reminder that kim
9:18 am
junguning is determined to develop his nuclear arsenal while depriving north koreans of their most basic human rights. when i say their most basic human rights, we had the opportunity to speak with the former propaganda minister of north korea who told us that 1.9 million north koreans starved while this regime violating every agreement it had made with the international community plowed forward with a plan to develop nuclear weapons. north korea has literally spent millions on its nuclear and its three-stage icbm program and that is all money that could have provided enough food to feed this country for years. if you have ever been in north korea, you see that the children there are malnourished. as a matter of fact, 50%, up to 50% of the children are so malnourished that it is estimated it's going to affect
9:19 am
their future development and their ability to really conceptually because of the degree of depravation there. in the meantime it continues also to build up its military. this week's test comes only two months after the launch of a north korean intercontinental missile leaving no doubt in my mind that decades, decades of fruitless negotiations, frankly, have been a failure. north korea is a pariah state that's attacked its neighbors many times and just last month the ranking member, eliot engel, from new york and i had the opportunity to visit the wreckage of the south korean naval vessel. and there we saw the evidence where 46 south korean sailors lost their lives in 2011, victim to a north korean torpedo that was fired at that ship. i cannot imagine the anguish that this despicable act has caused for so many of those
9:20 am
parents of those young sailors in south korea. the shared sacrifice the south koreans and americans have endured as a result of north korean aggression is a sacred, inseparable bond between our two peoples. this resolution appropriately stands by south korea and japan, our allies in northeast asia. as north korea continues to disregard international norms it's important for this house to speak out. but we must do more, and in the coming weeks i will introduce legislation that targets north korea's ability to access hard currency. in my conversations with the president of south korea and president-elect, i have always stressed the importance of targeted sanctions so that we can bring about change inside north korea. when dictators cannot pay their generals, they cannot test nuclear weapons and launch
9:21 am
missiles. this was an important lesson of the sanctions -- financial sanctions we put on banks that have dealt with the north korean regimes and as a result of that imposition at the time, it brought to a halt the ability of the north korean regime to pay its generals. mr. speaker, america's policy on north korea has been a bipartisan failure. we can no longer just hope that north korea is going to give up its weapons in exchange for aid. it is time we come together to hold this he regime responsible for all the pain and suffering that it has caused, and do so by imposing these -- this access to hard currency restriction. i cannot envision a scenario where kim jung un voluntarily gives up the one weapon that keeps his dynasty in power. reports indicate that north korea's nuclear program is getting more powerful and missiles are flying further. if north korea's allowed to
9:22 am
continue down this path, frankly, we all lose. the time to act is now. i'm going to reserve the balance of my time, mr. speaker. thank you. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from california -- new york is recognized. mr. engel: thank you, mr. speaker. i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. engel: thank you. i rise in strong support of h.res. 65, as amended. i'd like to thank our chairman of foreign affairs committee, mr. royce, for his leadership in addressing the threat posed by north korea. i'm proud to be the lead democratic co-sponsor of this resolution. i believe it's very important for the house to speak with a strong bipartisan voice in condemning north korea's recent nuclear test. this test was an unnecessary provocation that raises tensions in northeast asia, imposes a threat to national security of the united states and our allies in the region. the test also violates numerous
9:23 am
u.n. security council resolutions and i urge the security council to promptly pass a new resolution with additional sanctions to punish the north korean regime. in particular, i call on china and russia to work instructively with other members of the security council to show the world that the world is united in opposing north korea's unacceptable behavior. i recently traveled to asia with chairman royce, and this is one of the key issues we discussed with senior chinese leaders. china must do more. they are the one that is can rein in north korea. they must do so. they must do so immediately. the north korean regime must understand that the development of ballistic missiles and nuclear weapons will never make it as strong and prosperous nation. instead of wasting millions of dollars on these weapons of mass destruction, it should focus on feeding its own impoverished people. i have visited north korea, the capitol, pyongyang on two
9:24 am
occasions and i can tell you the north korean regime would do better to help its own people, give them the things they deserve rather than spend its time and money on exploding nuclear devices in violation of what the international community believes. and the new, young dictator of north korea must understand that the united states and our allies will not stand idly by and allow them to continuously violate what the international community thinks is acceptable. i agree with chairman royce that for too long they have played this game. they have talked and talked and gone on and gone on. and nothing has really been done. and they continue to violate international law. unfortunately iran is playing the same game and we cannot allow that to happen, either. iran getting a nuclear weapon. so given the threat posed by
9:25 am
north korea, the united states must remain vigilant and further strengthen cooperation with our allies of south korea and japan, and as the chairman said, we were in south korea just a few days ago and we saw the evidence , provocation of north korea torpedoing a ship from south korea, killing 50-some odd members of the military of south korea in an unprovoke attack. this is an outlaw regime and it really must be handled properly. i urge my colleagues to support this resolution and i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from california. mr. royce: mr. speaker, i just want to take a moment to thank mr. engel for the forceful leadership that he gave us on this issue as we were meeting with the governments of china and japan and south korea.
9:26 am
mr. speaker, if i could yield two minutes to the gentlelady from florida, ms. ros-lehtinen, chairman of the foreign affairs subcommittee on the middle east and north africa and our chairman emare to us -- chairman emeritus who has been very engaged. ms. ros-lehtinen: thank you, mr. speaker. i thank our esteemed chairman of the house foreign affairs committee, as well as our ranking member, my good friend, mr. engel of new york. and i rise in strong support of this resolution authored by mr. royce and mr. engel, condemning north korea for its most recent nuclear test. kim like his father and grandfather before him continues to thumb his nose at the united states and south korea and japan, indeed the international community as a whole by flagrantly violateling -- violating u.n. security council resolutions. pyongyang continues to pursue its goals of nuclear armament,
9:27 am
while leaving its citizens malnourished, starving, suffering from diseases. without an appropriate response, north korea will continue to launch rockets as it did this past december, will ten to conduct nuclear tests, and will continue to undermine u.s. national security interests as well as threaten our allies in the region. it is clear that north korea is not now nor has it ever been an honest broker and has never lived up to its international obligations. the time for engagement has long since passed, mr. speaker. kim has made his priorities compleer. to obtain nuclear weapons and to support, finance, and equip rogue regimes such as iran and syria. such support to these state sponsors of terrorism should be more than enough for us in the united states to redesignate north korea on the terrorist list. and so i introduced a bipartisan
9:28 am
bill earlier this week, the north korea sanctions and diplomatic nonrecognition act of 2013, that would do exactly that. this is a critical moment for our allies in asia and the united states must reaffirm our unwavering support to our allies , south korea and japan. i urge my colleagues to join us in condemning nork fork for its repeated provocations and violations of u.n. security resolutions. mr. royce: i yield another minute. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady is recognized. ms. ros-lehtinen: i thank the chairman for the time. so therefore i call upon the administration to take appropriate action necessary and stand in solidarity with our south korean and japanese allies as they continue to live under the increasing threat of a nuclear north korea. i thank the chairman and the ranking member for their leadership on this issue and our
9:29 am
foreign affairs committee will continue to pursue this terrible vexing problem doggedly. thank you he so much, mr. chairman. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady yields back. the gentleman from california reserves. the gentleman from new york is recognized. mr. engel: thank you, mr. speaker. i just want to say that we can hear that members on both sides of the aisle are speaking with one voice in unison and i urge, again, the congress to speak in a bipartisan basis to say that this is not acceptable. and that we condemn in the strongest possible terms what north korea has done. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from california is recognized. mr. royce: if i might yield, mr. speaker, two minutes to the gentleman from ohio, mr. chabot, he's the chairman of the foreign affairs subcommittee on asia and the pacific. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from ohio is recognized for two minutes. mr. chabot: than you. i'd like to add my voice to thanking the leadership,
9:30 am
chairman royce, ranking member engel, and former full chair, ms. ros-lehtinen, for their leadership on this very important issue. and i rise in strong support of this resolution condemning the actions of a pariah state an its dictatorial leader for brazenly violating international sanctions, multiple united nations security council resolutions, and repeatedly threatening the peace and stability of the korean pin anyone suea -- peninsula. north korea's test of a nuclear bomb following its test of a ballistic missile in december was a clear indication it is continuing its quest for the ability to threaten the united states, south korea, and other neighbors in the region. . it has become evident that the current sanctions are not working but rather emboldening
9:31 am
pyongyang and give weapons to dangerous allies in the region. this resolution is the first step in order to cripple the north korean's regime to carry on with its illicit activities. i look forward to working with chairman royce and other colleagues to work on legislation that puts in place much tougher and effective sanctions, to sevener kim jong il's -- the suffering people of north korea are starving while their latest dictator squanders the nation's precious resources and threatens his neighbors and the surrounding region. the civilized world must take notice and take action. i thank the chairman for his leadership on this issue, and i urge the support of the resolution and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from california is recognized.
9:32 am
mr. royce: mr. speaker, i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. royce: well, mr. speaker, i'd just like to urge my colleagues to support this resolution, condemning north korea's nuke test. this threat -- nuclear test. this threat, i point out, is not just a threat to northeast asia. it's a global threat that demands our attention. north korea has demonstrated a willingness in the past. they've demonstrated a clear ability to proliferate nuclear and missile technology. we think about their proliferation to countries, nuclear proliferation to syria. we think about their nuclear technology and their missile technologies proliferation to iran. we cannot wait for the next nuclear test, mr. speaker, or the news that north korea has successfully miniaturized a nuclear weapon. we already saw the statement that this was a smaller nuclear weapon in the past. we saw the official kcna news
9:33 am
outlet for the north korean regime make the statement that their target for their icbm program was the united states. and lastly, many of us remember the video that came out last week, that very odd video that shows a north korean sleeping, dreaming about an icbm attack. the icbm is launched. it ends up following the curvature of the earth and hitting new york city on this video with that very odd background music playing. but it just shows an attitude, and i think that we cannot stand idle and tell ourselves that further sanctions have no prospect of success, especially when we saw how effective for that brief period of time where the treasury department was so concerned about the counterfeiting of $100 bills that they actually forced
9:34 am
deployment of those financial sanctions on those institutions which the north koreans used in order to have access to hard currency. we saw at that time the result and the protests from north korea, and the result inside north korea when there was not the money to pay the military or carry out the types of programs that they do in terms of their missile and nuclear testing. so it's time to be honest with the american people that frankly our current north korean policy is not working. it hasn't worked for a long time. going forward, we need to move away from that failed north korean policy to one with energy and creativity and focus, and i think we need to learn from what worked in the past until unfortunately those sanctions were lifted shortly after they were deployed because of the protests from north korea. so let's tackle north korea's illicit activities, its missile
9:35 am
and drug proliferation where between that and its counterfeit currency program, that's how it gets close to 50% of its hard currency. this regime will do anything for money, obviously, as south koreans will tell you, it's a gangster regime. but let's interview with those shipments. let's disrupt the bank accounts that is used. let's ramp up the radio broadcasts into the country where there is evidence the information wall is cracking. 37% of those people that flee the regime today say they're listening to broadcasts or they're accessing information that is telling them about what's happening in the outside world and what's really going on in their own country. and that's the kind of information we have to get into this regime. and let's help the refugees who are literally dying to escape the prison above the 38th parallel. we can end -- weakening the regime is the only way to make the korean peninsula secure. so we must come together to do
9:36 am
everything that is necessary. i yield back the balance of my time. thank you, mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the question is will the house suspend the rules and agree to house resolution 65 as amended. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, 2/3 having responded in the affirmative, the rules are -- mr. royce: mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california. mr. royce: i would request the yeas and nays. the speaker pro tempore: the yeas and nays are requested. all those in favor of taking this vote by the yeas and nays will rise and remain standing until counted. a sufficient number having arisen, the yeas and nays are ordered. pursuant to clause 8 of rule 20, further proceedings on this motion will be postponed.
9:37 am
for what purpose does the gentleman from california seek recognition? >> mr. speaker, pursuant to house resolution 66, i wish to call up h.r. 273, to eliminate the 2013 statutory pay adjustment for federal employees and ask its immediate consideration. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the title of the bill. the clerk: h.r. 273, a bill to eliminate the 2013 statutory pay adjustment for federal employees. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to house resolution 66, the bill is considered as read. the gentleman from california, mr. issa, and the gentleman from maryland, mr. cummings, will each control 30 minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from california. mr. issa: thank you, mr. speaker. i ask unanimous consent that all members may have five legislative days to revise and extend their remarks on h.r. 273 and to include extraneous
9:38 am
material thereon. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. the gentleman is recognized. mr. issa: mr. speaker, i yield myself such time as i may consume. good-paying full-time jobs should not be limited to those fortunate enough to work for the federal government. at a time when hardworking american taxpayers are struggling to find work and keep their heads above water, the federal government offices work force a sufficient and generous pay and job security. this is not to imply that they're overpaid. this is not to imply that they're overcompensated. that's a discussion for another day. but certainly at a time in which the american people saw their household income drop by $4,000, that has not happened in the federal work force. year after year the federal work force has received
9:39 am
increases. and with the exception with a limited pay freeze done under president obama's executive order, they in fact have received consistent pay increases and their benefits have been maintained. at this time we are faced with sequestration. sequestration for our men and women in uniform means aircraft do not fly, ships do not get maintained and, yes, furloughs may very well happen. to avoid furloughs, to avoid arbitrarily cutting the most junior individuals or stripping away our military's ability to protect us, it is a small price to pay, consistent with the president's previous pay freeze, to hold pay increases of federal employees for one more year. it is my sincere hope that working together we will both resolve the budget shortfalls and get america working again
9:40 am
over the next year. but at a time when most a great men and then the average federal worker makes more than his private sector counterpart, when a great many of them make more than $100,000 a year, at a time in which members of congress appropriately have frozen their own pay year after year, it is a price that we have the authority and we ask the federal work force to agree with us that in fact this is a year not to raise the pay of federal workers. last year we spent $11 billion on nonmerit pay increases for federal workers. it's the right time to say no increases other than those specifically deemed by specific merits under statute is important. now, my colleagues on the other side of the aisle will not agree with this. i have no doubt. but let me say one thing, i
9:41 am
know that mr. cummings and i do agree that we have to find viable alternatives to stripping away the capability of our military to maintain our safety. we have to find viable alternatives to cutting the important work on medicines and other life-saving federal programs that in fact our seniors and all of our citizens rely on. we could do this today or we could cut the national institute of health. we could do this today or we could park two or three of our aircraft carriers and lay off the crews. i don't think the other side has any question that a viable alternative to those kinds of across-the-board cuts are clearly important. so i ask the minority to join with me today in realizing this is not what we want to do, this is what we need to do if we're going to prevent arbitrary cuts
9:42 am
that in fact will touch americans in many cases in all the wrong ways. i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from maryland is recognized. mr. cummings: i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. cummings: mr. speaker, i rise today in strong opposition to h.r. 273. given the many critical challenges our nation faces, i and many of my colleagues hope that the 113th congress would bring a new era of shared purpose that would enable us to work together to grow the nation's economy, create jobs and invest in our country's future. there are only five legislative days, mr. speaker, left before the across-the-board cuts required by sequestration will take effect. rather than seeking solutions to the urgent challenges we face, our republican friends are wasting two days simply
9:43 am
renewing their tax on middle-class hardworking federal employees. h.r. 273 has one purpose. it would extend the current freeze on federal employee's pay for a third consecutive year. mr. speaker, federal workers, the same federal workers who care for our veterans, the same ones that clean our offices, the same ones that find cures to diseases, devastating diseases at n.i.h., the same ones that secure our borders, the same ones that regulate our drug supply have already contributed more than $100 billion towards reducing the deficit and funding unemployment benefits for millions of american workers. no other group of americans
9:44 am
have contributed more to reducing the deficit. no other group has contributed more to ensuring our government remains strong. no other group has worked harder to ensure with securing our nation from threats. no other group has worked harder to provide the services on which our fellow citizens depend. if h.r. 273 becomes law, the same middle-class hardworking workers would be required to contribute another $11 billion towards deficit reduction for a staggering total of nearly $115 billion. these are the same workers who have had their pay frozen tore years, and these -- for years, and these are the same workers who are facing the now threat of furloughs and layoffs if congress fails to resolve
9:45 am
sequestration by march 1. it's estimated that one million employees will suffer furlough days. administration estimates that the arbitrary across-the-board budget cuts for federal agencies that would be required under sequestration will result in the furlough of, again, a million employees. we are at a tipping point in our nation. the american people have re-elected president obama and voted in favor of policies that will support continued growth, create new and expanded job opportunities and ensure the safety and health of our great nation. . however here in the house, the voters are not being heard. we continue to waste time considering measures that will only make our fellow americans less financially secure. less secure in their health care , less secure in their children's education, and less
9:46 am
secure in their jobs. one of the arguments that we consistently hear is that we need certainty. we need -- people need to know exactly what's going to happen in their lives. we have heard that argument over and over and over again. yet when it comes to federal employees, we leave them in a lurch, not knowing how much the next paycheck will be. at the same time, house republicans have refused to consider asking the richest among us to contribute a dime more. that's one of the most painful things about this entire thing. a lot of times when i'm interviewing people to come to our staff, a lot of them tell me, congressman, we don't mind taking paychecks from the private sector because we want to do good for the public sector. and they say that they want to simply feed their souls. they want to do something significant. they want to affect broad groups
9:47 am
of people. but yet this is what they get. we could have considered a he proposal today to eliminate takes used by oil and gas -- tax breaks used by oil and gas companies and hedge fund managements, considering a limit to itemize deductions for the wealthiest americans. instead house republicans continue to return to the same hardworking middle class american workers over and over again. the problem is that these repeated cuts would impair the ability of the government to carry out its mission and service to the american people. social security is located in my district. and i have seen and talked to our social security employees for they are my neighbors and they tell me that they have seen cut after cut with regard to employees, and now you have got people who were once three
9:48 am
people doing their job, now there's one and the cuts continue. they don't mind working. they don't mind sacrificing. but they say if you are going to make us sacrifice, then let's have some equal sacrificing from people who can afford the cuts. as president obama has emphasized our economy succeeds and our economy grows when everybody's getting a fair shot and everybody's getting a fair shake. i urge my colleagues to move beyond this partisan agenda of denigrating our nation's public servants and join together to address the real issues american s elected us to solve. were that -- with that i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from california is recognized. >> the opposition is entitled to their opinion but not their facts. mr. issa: let's go through some facts. my ranking member may not
9:49 am
remember january 1. i know it was a long time ago, over a month. on january 1 with the president's blessing and insistence, we raised the taxes on the highest income producers and on family businesses by 5% on their ordinary income and by 5% on their capital gains. capital gains would be a 33% increase from 15% to 20%. these are not small increases. these were huge. i didn't vote for them. my opponent did. my ranking member did. i didn't vote for them because in fact the president deliberately said, oh, no, we are not going to touch anything else in taxes except to stick it to the rich, and he did. and this body did. that was a decision. but i hope my ranking member will remember that a month ago and a few days we had a huge tax increase of the president's choosing sm it had been offered
9:50 am
up -- choosing. it had been offered up by the republicans to work together to find loopholes, but that was rejected in favor of a stick it to the rich tax increase that he chose. there was $500 billion worth of revenue that would have been generated per year, $5 trillion over 10 years, if the president had been willing to go back to bill clinton taxes on all. he was not. it is the height of hypocrisy to come in 30 days, actually in about one day, and begin talking about the next round of tax increases on a relatively limited group on our population, the 1% or 3%, and in fact start reducing their ability to have working capital for new oil exploration, for new natural gas exploration. the thing that the president just a few days ago standing in front of where you are today lauded as great, we are becoming
9:51 am
oil self-sufficient, we are natural gas self-sufficient, we are able to move to cleaner fuels for our energy. but let's break something else down. my opponent, i keep saying opponent, he's my ranking member, but he is the loyal opposition here, he he talks about $100 billion. i think we need to break it down. that's $100 billion over 10 years. it's not even $10 billion in the first year. his $100 billion of sacrifice, many of those sacrifices won't even occur because people aren't going to necessarily be here for all 10 years, because next year or the year after this congress might be able to increase pay to make up for what we have to hold back this year. we may have that good time and good employment and ability to do that, and i would join with the members to try to find that way, but the fact is what actually is being asked to be given up by the typical federal worker, the one that the president is calling such a huge
9:52 am
sacrifice, is $274 per employee per year. with that i'd like to recognize the gentleman from florida who has been a leader on this issue and who understands the hardworking men and women of the federal work force and why this is necessary. the gentleman from florida. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from florida is recognized for five minutes. mr. ross: thank you, mr. speaker. mr. chairman, i thank you for your efforts and leadership on this particular issue. mr. speaker, at a time when our country is more than $16 trillion in debt, i rise today in support of h.r. 273 and in support of my colleague from florida's efforts to hold the federal government more accountable to taxpayers. as a former chair of the oversight and government reform subcommittee on federal work force, i held hearings about the discrepancies and compensation and benefits between federal employees and private sector employees. it's interesting to see what we found out. for example, the congressional
9:53 am
budget office found that the total compensation for federal employees was 16% greater than that of the private sector employees. the c.b.o. also reported that federal employee benefits were 48% more costly than the private sector employees' benefits. as a former small business owner, i'm shocked to learn how serious these crepecies truly are. in the private sector i have had the responsibility to make a payroll. balance my budget, and reduce spending during difficult economic times. at a time when our children and grandchildren are funding the federal government with a credit card, members of congress have a responsibility to make tough choices and reduce spending. that is why during my time as chairman i oversaw two years of federal pay preezes. however, these federal pay freezes were not my idea. in fact, it was a bipartisan idea. the president in his simpson-bowles commission on
9:54 am
fiscal responsibility recommended a three-year pay freeze for federal employees. as a proponent of the simpson-bowles plan i'm happy the house will be following through today on this recommendation. our talented federal work force performs exceptional duties critical to the effective day to day operation and functioning of our government. however, the government almost also examine every area of its budget during these difficult economic times in order to become more accountable to taxpayers. and just so we are clear, this legislation also freezes pay for members of congress. that's right. members of congress including my own for the remainder of the year. if we are asking families of the federal work force to bear some of this burden, and to live within their means, so should we as members of congress do the same. with that in mind, mr. speaker, i ask my colleagues to join me in supporting this bipartisan
9:55 am
bowles-simpson recommendation and vote yes on the bill. with that i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from florida yields back. the gentleman from california reserves. the gentleman from maryland is recognized. mr. cummings: yes, mr. speaker. simpson-bowles commission in support of a bill, simpson-bowles commission was a comprehensive deficit reduction proposal that called for shared sacrifice from all groups of americans. i see only one group of americans being asked to sacrifice in this bill and that's federal employees. studies conducted by the congressional budget office, the american enterprise institute, and heritage foundation rely upon u.s. census bureaus current population survey which consists of self-reported data from surveys of households. this data is not as reliable as the data tracked by the bureau of labor and statistics which is used by the president's rm office to set federal pay and
9:56 am
adjustments. i now yield two minutes to the distinguished gentlelady from district of columbia, ms. norton. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady is recognized for two minutes. ms. norton: i thank my friend from maryland for yielding. a furtherance -- in furtherance of a point he was making you can cite different studies on this question, so let me cite the authoritative study, the federal salary council, 2012, finding that federal employees were paid nearly 35% less than employees in similar occupations in the private sector. and this study was compiled by experts in labor relations and pay policies and it used data from the bureau of labor statistics. federal employees have not asked for a pass, but there is no way to justify singling them out as a solitary target, alone,
9:57 am
repeatedly, picked out and picked on for cuts apart from the rest of the federal budget. three years of freeze in pay is a punishing cut in pay. yet our federal work force, although much smaller than it was 25 years ago, is so efficient that they are serving millions more here and abroad. each of these hardworking civil servants, the best educated and most specialized public employees in the country, either themselves perform a century services the country cannot do without or render vital support for these services. the majority has graduated from demonizing federal employees. they now want their pay. they don't have the support from the country to cut federal pay. so for three years they have
9:58 am
found a backdoor way to do exactly that. with never-ending pay freezes. mr. speaker, if enough was ever enough, enough of freezes is enough this year. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady yields back. the gentleman from maryland reserves. the gentleman from california is recognized. mr. issa: mr. speaker, i'd now like to yield five minutes to the gentleman from florida, member of the committee, and a newcomer but not someone that hasn't watched this play out time and time again as people call $274 a catastrophe for the federal work force. the gentleman from florida for five minutes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from florida is recognized for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. speaker. thank you, mr. chairman, for your leadership on this issue.
9:59 am
mr. speaker, we must change the way this government spends money. we have to be responsible with the money that the government makes our citizens send to washington, d.c. taxpayers deserve our best efforts to put our nation on a sustainable fiscal path. now, this bill represents a small but commonsense measure that will save taxpayers $11 billion. it reverses the president's executive order at the end of last year which provides an automatic pay increase for nonmilitary federal employees, the vice president, and members of the president's cabinet. it also extends the freeze on pay for members of congress through the rest of the calendar year. mr. desantis: this policy has been pointed out by some of my colleagues implements one of the recommendations of the bipartisan simpson-bowles commission. many government employees do great work. forestalling an autoemptyic pay increase is not a reflection on
10:00 am
their work but simply recognizes our current fiscal reality and the fact that government salaries must bear some relationship to the private sector salaries that support them. it should be stressed that this is a modest measure. this does not prevent pay increases based on promotion or longevity or bonuses for federal employees from their agencies. indeed, during the last two years when this freeze has been implemented, the average federal salary increased by an average of $3,328 while the average private sector employee saw an increase of just $1,404 if she was even lucky enough to have a job at all. . i hope we will get to a path to balance within 10 years. if we can get our fiscal situation stabilize then we can have private sector job
10:01 am
creation which will benefit employees of all stripes, government and private alike, and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from california reserves. the gentleman from maryland is recognized. mr. cummings: yes, mr. speaker. i yield to the gentleman from massachusetts three minutes, mr. lynch. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from massachusetts is recognized for three minutes. mr. lynch: thank you, mr. speaker. i thank the gentleman from maryland for yielding. mr. speaker, i want to get away from the abstract here about studies that talk about who's making what. i've got three v.a. facilities in my district, brockton v.a. hospital, the jamaica plain veterans hospital and west roxbury v.a. i spend a lot of time at the v.a. this week i had a chance to go through and talk to a lot of my v.a. folks and the nurses, the docs, the therapists, the
10:02 am
nursing assistants, the orderlies. right now we are trying to deal with the traumatic brain injury and ptsd issue at the v.a. witnessed is pernicious. we have a lot of folks doing a lot of tours in iraq and afghanistan coming home four, five, six tours of duty and they got problems. and so we're relying on the v.a., our folks at the v.a. to take care of our sons and daughters who are coming home and they're hurting. well, i just want to talk about one young woman who is a nursing assistant down in brockton at the v.a., and she's a g-3. we are going to freeze her pay for the third year in a row. ok. she's trying her hardest to take care of our veterans. she's a g-3 under the system. she makes $27,322 a year. that's what that young woman makes. she's a nursing assistant. she's working in the
10:03 am
psychiatric ward trying to take care of our sons and daughters who are coming home who need help, and we're freezing her pay by this bill. i'm talking about real people doing real work for brave americans. and this is a disgrace, this is an absolute disgrace. i thought after the president's election we would get by this stuff. it is dishartening to see this thing -- disheartening to see this thing go on. this is the third year in a row that this lady's pay will be frozen. we have no folks going into the v.a. we can't compete with the private hospitals that are paying a lot more money. the docs at the private hospitals in my district, and i have a bunch of them, and the nurses and the therapists, they're making a lot more money than the folks at the v.a. and we're driving down the wages of these people and not taking care of them. look -- and i do want to point
10:04 am
out the stuff with the pay for congress. we got to have our pay frozen, ok. i have voted six times to freeze congress' pay since i've been here in congress and we should do that. we shouldn't do it for a few months like this bill does. we should freeze it right through the end of the congress because we should lead by example. i really believe that. we should freeze congressional pay. and i have a bill here that will do that right through the end of the congress. i know it doesn't make some of my colleagues happy and their spouses happy but i think it's something we should do. so let's get away from this stuff beating up federal employees. let's try to do the right thing. it's an honorable thing, public service. we ought to take care of the folks at the v.a. i ask my colleagues across the aisle to voting against this measure. thank you. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from california is recognized. mr. issa: mr. speaker, i said earlier and now i have to repeat it, the other side is entitled to their opinion but not their facts.
10:05 am
mr. speaker, that's the number, almost half a million out of two million of our federal work force receive over $100,000, but the gentleman from massachusetts chose to pick a g-3. ok. fine. this is an entry level unskilled position. but let's understand something. it still pays better than the minimum wage job that you're hoping to get in some cases. it pays more than an awful lot of jobs out there. as a matter of fact, it pays about the average for somebody who has no special seals coming in, but we won't even debate that. we won't debate any of that. let's have the facts, the truth. that woman receives a step increase every year. she's gotten a pay increase every year like the rest of most of the work force. as a three level she's getting a step increase. so to say she didn't get a pay
10:06 am
raise is just not true. and if my colleague from massachusetts were better informed he would have said that himself rather than leaving that fact out of the pay raise that was achieved because step increases occur even during pay freezes. i yield to the gentleman from georgia, mr. collins. five minutes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from georgia is recognized for five minutes. mr. collins: i thank the chairman for bringing this forward and the comments that have been had. i rise to support the legislation because i believe the american people are fed up with hypocrisy. this is not federal workers. this is about financial reality. this is what we got to look at right now. when i told my staff and i told many in my district that too many times we cannot let the emotion of the moment miss the honesty of the moment. last month many americans saw their own paychecks decrease as a result of a payroll tax increase. while average mearnings americans were feeling the effects of this pay increase at home the president was pushing
10:07 am
for a pay increase. there are hardworking men and women in my district struggling to make ends meet. they would like a raise but unlike the administration they don't have the power to take taxpayer dollars and increase their own paycheck. instead, they've sacrificed, made cuts and they've gotten rid of the extras in their daily lives and found ways to live within their means. they have done these things using the process that the president could learn from. families across the state of georgia and the u.s. sit down and make tough decisions on how to spend their money. i cannot support the government taking on more debt to give raises to members of congress and the federal employees at this time. i submitted an amendment on this -- to rules committee extending this pay freeze through the end of next year. i'm glad to see my friend across the aisle from massachusetts would agree with me on that. i believe we need to move forward with serious reforms to address our nation's fiscal crisis.
10:08 am
just as millions of americans have done for their entire lives, washington learns -- needs to learn to make due. america does not need pay raises for bureaucrats. they need real leadership. they need real reform, real commitment to putting our country back on a path of prosperity. american taxpayers deserve no less, and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from california reserves. the gentleman from maryland. mr. cummings: yes, mr. speaker, mr. lynch mentioned a nurse taking care of veterans. i just want to say that it's not about somebody being unskilled. she's taking care of some folks who have served us and needs skillful workers. $27,000, i don't know if anybody's looked at daycare lately, but daycare can cost you $27,000. mr. issa: will the gentleman yield for a question? mr. cummings: i don't have much time unless you are going to give me some time. if you give me time i'll be
10:09 am
happy to yield. mr. issa: i'll wait. mr. cummings: ok. i yield two minutes to my distinguished colleague, mr. clay. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from missouri is recognized for two minutes. mr. clay: thank you, mr. speaker. i thank my friend from maryland for yielding, and i rise today in strong opposition to h.r. 273, a deeply flawed bill that punishes all federal workers across the nation by not even allowing them to have a half of a percent salary increase. once again, the majority is showing america that they do not care about the suffering of middle-class federal employees after they have already accepted a two-year pay freeze and a freeze on retirees cost-of-living adjustments. federal employees are
10:10 am
intelligence analysts, who defend america's borders, they are nurses and doctors who care for our veterans. they are scientists who conduct life-saving research, which is producing remarkable results and generating new jobs across this country. and they provide countless other federal services to all of our constituents. it is wrong to intentionally target our nation's best and brightest public servants by giving them good reason to quit their government job and move to the private sector. my friends, the sad truth is that this bill is not really about deficit reduction. it is just the latest act and more bad political theater that does nothing to strengthen our economy. my honorable colleague, federal employees are my constituents and your constituents and they
10:11 am
are hurting and we should not be wasting time on political nonsense like this. i urge my friends on both sides of the aisle to put our country before our politics. let's defeat this reckless and unfair bill and then let's sit down together to force a reasonable compromise that will reduce the deficit, avoid the sequester and restore economic security for middle-class families. thank you, mr. speaker, and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from california. mr. issa: i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. issa: mr. speaker, again, the facts speak louder than the rhetoric. .4%, less than a quarter of the exit rate in the federal work force of the private sector. one of the reasons, people in the private sector are fighting to figure out how to get a job that pays better. this is our exit in the public sector. they're mott leaving because they weren't paid enough.
10:12 am
there's no cra conian cuts. -- draconian cuts. the fact is this is the truth and the facts speak louder. the federal work force, only 22% of the federal work force believes that their pay is linked to performance. the federal work force doesn't like not getting $274 more. mr. clay: if the gentleman will yield, i'd love to -- mr. issa: you'll have your time. mr. clay: i don't have time. mr. issa: we have a problem and the problem is everyone wants to call a total of about $1 billion of not increases as somehow draconian. .4%, they're not leaving the work force, that's the important thing, and i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from maryland is recognized. mr. cummings: mr. speaker, i'd like to know how much time we have. the speaker pro tempore: the
10:13 am
gentleman has 15 1/2 minutes. mr. cummings: i yield the gentleman from virginia, mr. connolly, three minutes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from virginia is recognized for three minutes. mr. connolly: i thank the speaker, and i thank my friend from maryland. the distinguished chairman of this committee says that we're entitled to our opinions but not our own facts while he calls upon our friend from florida, former member of our committee, who cherry picks on the simpson-bowles committee. the same committee that said we need a $4 trillion hit on the debt over the next 10 years and it has to be a balance between revenue and spending cuts. my friend from florida and my friend from california fail to cite that fact. that's a fact. the chairman just put up a sign talking about the exit rate in the federal work force. what he doesn't tell you is
10:14 am
that 47% of the existing federal work force is eligible for retirement over this next decade because of the baby boom demographic. how will we replace them? especially the higher skillsets? my friend from california, like me, came from the private sector before he came here. he was more successful than i. very successful. and i applaud him for that. but i would hope that in that success we don't lose sight of that gs-3 making $27,000 a year serving our veterans in a veterans hospital. it's easy when we don't suffer low wages to perhaps lose perspective about the real need , even in our federal work force, and at the higher end, the more we disparage our federal work force, the more we
10:15 am
get less attractive, the more we treat them like a piggy bank, the less attractive that service will be. we are a far, far distance from when john kennedy called americans to public service because he saw it, as did so many of that generation, as a noble calling. . we haven't just asked for $200 from every federal worker, we have at-ed or succeeded in freezing their wages three years in a row. when my friend from california, the distinguished chairman of our committee, another fact conveniently does not point out is that we have done more than that, and we have attempted to do more than that. we funded the payroll tax cut with $15 billion of cuts for prospective federal employees in the pension programs. we attempted for the first time ever, unheard of, no nexus, to fund the transportation bill to the tune of $50 billion in cuts
10:16 am
from existing pension programs, breaking an existing contract. that's a fact, too. making an inconvenient one. federal workers deserve the dignity of the work they provide. federal workers need to be respected for serving our constituents. and the losers in this debate won't just be there, it will be the people we serve. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from california is recognized. mr. issa: i yield myself one minute. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. issa: it is the minority's job to find facts that in fact we may not have said, and i appreciate them doing that rather than flinging opinions and statements about people's intent. mr. ross stood here, though, and he told us fact and he has a bill a simpson-bowles-type bill that isn't comprehensive. he he isn't just here picking facts. he picked apart simpson-bowles and put together a comprehensive
10:17 am
savings bill that in fact was modeled after simpson-bowles, and if he were here i would have given him time to say just that because he's a leader in our congress. i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from maryland is recognized. mr. cummings: i yield myself a minute. i just want to say, mr. speaker, that i hope that our members before they vote on this bill would take a moment and talk to their own employees and find out why they are in federal government and why they work for the government. that's all i want them to do. i guarantee you nine out of 10 of them will say, because we love what we do. because we want to make a contribution. i yield to mr. wolf, three minutes. from virginia. the speaker pro tempore: gentleman from virginia is recognized for three minutes. mr. wolf: i rise in opposition to the bill. i saw the movie "zero dark thirtyy" in the movie the woman, maya, who is working for 10 years to find osama bin laden and the entire team, maya's pay
10:18 am
raise and pay has been frozen and the team for the last 10 years. there is a scene in the movie, i don't want to ruin it if you haven't seen it, seven c.i.a. employees were killed. i went out to the memorial service in my congressional district at langley where i watched the young kids, one little kid had a blazer on and khakis and i watched them come in. the team that replaced the team that was killed, were at a pay freeze for three years. the agent who stopped that young boy from being killed down in alabama, just rounded up a taliban terrorist in california, pay raise. no, freeze for three years. over the last five years one i.c.e. agent killed, one secret service agent killed, three a.t.f. agents killed, one d.e.a. agent killed, two u.s. marshals killed, air traffic controller
10:19 am
to put the safety for my family and your family and our constituents as they fly through the sky, the n.i.h. my family has been devastated my cancer. my father died at cancer. my mother died of cancer and it's impacted on my family. dr. collins, who mapped the human genome system that will save many of you and your lives and your sons and daughters because of basically following that system, working on liver cancer, prostate cancer, breast cancer, ovarian cancer, which my mom died off. dr. collins and his team will have been frozen for three years. nasa, we just went through the 10th anniversary of the challenger explosion. those astronauts that sit on that rocket, those and now in the future, if you have a nasa facility in your district and they sit on that rocket to go up, they froze for three years.
10:20 am
firefighters out in the west when the storms come this summer and they are coming, the firefighters you call on them and beg them to come in and fight. and the weather service, those of you from florida and the tornado area and hurricanes area, the weathermen stay around the clockworking, frozen for three years. border patrol, brian terry, the people that work with him that are on the border where gangs, violent gangs coming across the border, brosen. for three -- frozen for three years. d.e.a. and others. the doctors out at walter reed, if you go out and visit walter reed or go visit your v.a. hospital, the doctors and the nurses that are working with the wounded warriors, people who have lost their limbs in afghanistan and iraq, frozen for three years.
10:21 am
with sequestration coming on top of this, i recognize a good intentions of the gentleman what you are trying to do. it's not justice, it's not fair, and i urge a no vote for this bill. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from california is recognized. mr. issa: i yield myself one minute. i know the gentleman didn't mean to when he was talking about maya, she did say her pay has been frozen for 10 years, i'm sure he meant two years. if we enact this a third year. but he did also say, this is -- mr. wolf's a dedicated servant of this country, he did say a couple things that i'd like to touch on. first of all when we talked about men and women of congress and they say they do it for the right reasons, they do it because they care, we are doing it with 11.5% less money in the house. both sides of the aisle. so in fact many cases we are paying the same or less than we are paying before.
10:22 am
and we have made those cuts. the federal work force has not seen an 11.5% reduction in actual dollars spent, but our offices have made those cuts under the speaker's leadership. lastly, i certainly believe that when you talk about walter reed we should include what the commander of walter reed told me on monday of this week, and that was that he he is now in the process of planning who to let go. he in fact has -- i yield myself an additional 15 seconds. he is in a situation, the commander there, two star, is dealing with the possibility of furloughing for 20% reduction. the number he's been given that he cannot possibly maintain the same level of care for those men and women, those wounded warriors and those veterans -- additional 10 seconds. will be devastated if we don't find ways to deal with alternatives. so i was at walter reed.
10:23 am
walter reed has a problem. this is a small part of the solution and every man and woman at walter reed would rather have a pay freeze than see people disappear from their rolls and not be able to service the needs of those people. i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from maryland is recognized. mr. cummings: yes, mr. speaker. the gentleman talked about employees and our committees taking a pay cut. that's true. they took a pay cut. and every single one of my employees who took a 5% pay cut and sometimes a little bit more, said one thing to me. we don't mind sacrificing. we will. every single one of them. but they said, others should sacrifice, too. with that i yield to mr. lobiondo, two minutes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from new jersey is recognized for two minutes. mr. lobiondo: thank you, mr. speaker. mr. cummings, thank you very much. we all talk about our heroes in
10:24 am
this country, and there are some real ones. 103 names at the c.i.a., we don't talk much about c.i.a. officers, f.b.i. officers, state department officers gave their lives. benghazi still fresh in our minds. brought the country to its knees in horror and agony and mourning. state department officers who lost their lives and we are going to tell them they have the audacity to tell them that we are going to deny them -- i don't care if it's $1, afghanistan, six c.i.a. officers, chief of station, brutally murdered. six seriously injured. i have the honor of being on the house intelligence committee. i have been to the camp. i have been to these forward operating bases. i have been into africa. i talked to these c.i.a. officers who are putting their lives on the line every single
10:25 am
minute of every day. they don't know when an attack is coming on them. they don't know from which direction. and we are going to tell them that they should not get even a single dollar. shame. that's not what he we should be about. that's never what he we should be about. if we can't put those who are protecting this country at the top of the list and understand, then shame on us. if we didn't understand this was in the bill, shame on us. if we did understand it was in the bill and we did it any how, then even more shame on us. this is wrong and we should not do it. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from california is recognized. mr. issa: recognize myself for such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. issa: the gentleman from new jersey is right. he's right when he said that we, in fact, have to make these tough decisions. this isn't freezing the pay of our men and women in uniform, and perhaps we should scrutinize
10:26 am
in detail as to the station chiefs and the others in harm's way, their combat pay, their special hazard pay, and so on. we held a hearing on benghazi and we were very aware that in fact they weren't paid enough to die for their country needlessly because we didn't do the right thing. i have no doubt about that. i represent camp pendleton. the marines of camep pendleton, the marine expi dishary force, have deployed more than anybody. they have been in iraq and they have been in afghanistan and they have been out there and we need to make sure we support them. that's the reason that we are looking for alternatives to sequestration every day. and we would love to have people on the other side of the aisle. so when we talk about the men and women in harm's way, it's not in fact, those in the towers helping get our planes safely landed, it's not the people inspecting our food. we have to make tough choices and i join with anyone who wants
10:27 am
to make tough choices on behalf of those in harm's way, but let's remember we are talking here, the vast majority, these are federal civil servants who in fact are paid pretty darn well. are not leaving, and we are asking for a small sacrifice. i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from maryland is recognized. mr. cummings: may i inquire how much time we have? both sides. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from maryland has 6 1/2 minutes. the gentleman from california has 9 1/2 minutes. mr. cummings: mr. speaker, i yield myself such time as i may consume. mr. speaker, my good friend, the chairman of our committee, has several times talked about loyal opposition. i'm not a loyal opposition. i am someone who believes in what i'm talking about. and i'm not just standing here to be opposing legislation to be opposing it.
10:28 am
because i'm a democrat. we had to put a human face on all of this. and i live in an area in baltimore where a lot of these employees making $40,000, $45,000 take the early bus, and they are the ones who believe in what they do. social security administration smack dab in the middle of my district. when i think about the people who are making -- those who make $100,000 or more, but we have to remember who those employees are. many of them we see every day. these are employees who are highly skilled professionals, and i think mr. wolf and mr. lobiondo talked about them. these are folks such as doctors
10:29 am
and staff at the veterans affairs department who treat our wounded warriors. warriors at the department of justice and security and exchange commission, and we have heard their testimony before our committee. these are folks who deal with some very, very complex issues and almost any law firm would be willing to pay them far more than what they are earning to work for the agencies that they work for. these are the folks who ininvestigate -- who investigate and prosecute complex fraud and criminal casings. some of the most famous scientists in the world and air traffic controllers who help navigate our planes. just a few months ago ranking member, chairman of the committee and i, went to see -- to an awards ceremony where federal employees who contribute so much to our society and who
10:30 am
could earn far more than what they are earning, were getting awards for doing some very magnificent and awesome things. i want to spend some time on this one issue. it's not so much, again, that federal employees don't mind sacrificing. they don't mind ficing. the question is -- sacrificing. the question is whether others will sacrifice, too. those who are making far more money than they are making, but yet and still they are asked over and over and over again to pay more and more and more. and so this is a very deep felt situation where most of the people have spoken, all of them, and i listen tot mr. lobiondo and i listened to mr. wolf, basically what they were
10:31 am
basically doing is making a case and reminding us that federal employees go into the business of being our federal employees because they want to make a difference. . and with that, mr. speaker, i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from california is recognized. mr. issa: i yield myself just 30 seconds. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. issa: earlier, there was a statement made about a nurse making $27,000. after checking we discovered that's a nurses assistant. a nurse at the veterans administration would make a lot more. a nursing assistant is paid a modest salary. $27,000 plus probably another $10,000 in indirect benefits. it's still more than the national average with somebody with that skill level. it is still a steady job. and it's still would have a step increase. with that i reserve the balance
10:32 am
of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from maryland. mr. cummings: i grant the gentleman from maryland, fellow marylander, mr. hoyer, three minutes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from maryland is recognized for three minutes. mr. hoyer: mr. speaker, there is not time to debate the time i have available how we determined federal pay. i was the sponsor of the federal pay comp rehabilitate act which president bush signed back in 1990. i know a little about this. but america is confronting a sequestration that will have devastating impact on our economy, on every individual in america and on international confidence in america's ability to manage itself. and what have we spent two days on? a quarter percent cap on cost-of-living adjustment for federal employees.
10:33 am
a quarter of a percent. some of us in this body earn that in about 10 minutes. not all of us but some. yet we fiddle while america faces a sequester burn. and sequester is republican policy. july 19, 2011, cut, cap and balance brought to this floor. 98% of republicans. 229 voted for it. what was the fallback position? sequester. and irrational policy that cuts across the board irrespective of priority. and so what does the majority in this congress do?
10:34 am
it has now wasted two weeks on debate of nickel diming the people we rely on to protect our domestic safety, our international security, our food and drugs, our health care, our borders. i join in the remarks of my good friend, frank wolf. he and i have been here for 32 years. we have some understanding of what is proper and not proper in terms of managing the government. now the sponsor of this legislation has been here approximately 45 days. 45 days and he introduces a bill to cap a quarter of a percent federal employees. the an mostity directed at our federal employees -- the animosity directed at our federal employees is so great that we have now taken two
10:35 am
weeks to try to diminish their pay in benefits. how sad. while the sequester looms 14 days from today putting at risk , as i said, america's economy, the creation of american jobs, the sense of confidence in our country. mr. cummings: additional minute. mr. hoyer: i thank the gentleman. and the perception around the world that america is a serious country. how sad. how shameful. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from california is recognized. mr. issa: mr. speaker, i'd inquire as to how much time i have remaining. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman has nine minutes. mr. issa: ok. i'd like to yield two minutes to the chairman of the rules committee, a person very knowledgeable of how this law that the president signed came to be passed. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texas is
10:36 am
recognized for two minutes. mr. sessions: thank you, mr. speaker. and i appreciate the gentleman, the chairman of the government reform committee, for giving me the time this morning. mr. speaker, there is a lot being said about this deal that we're now engaged in sequestration, but i believe looking back and i believed it at the time that the people that engaged in the idea did this because they never really lived up to it. they put forth an idea, the president of the united states, the white house and our friends on the other side of the aisle -- building and some i'm sure on this side, they cut a deal to avoid the reality that the president of the united states was engaged with us trying to resolve differences that we had about excessive spending. and i've got two minutes.
10:37 am
i appreciate. i will engage you on your time, sir. the facts of the case is these cuts came directly out of the white house, and it was to avoid having to make a tough decision at the time and i don't know this. i wasn't in the meetings. i'm sure it was something they thought would never happen. that's not serious. when the president of the united states offers a compromise that was his idea and it's signed into law, that's law, and that's what we're counting on and that's what the american people count on. we in this body, republicans, stood by a deal that was cut. now, i don't like the deal, but this house twice -- in the house of representatives twice has passed a plan that said we think there's a better way to do it. there's been nothing that's been countered by the white
10:38 am
house or by the senate. we've not been engaged. the president of the united states is engaged in spending by traveling on air force one around the country the ideas that don't help us solve the problem but that makes -- mr. issa: i yield the gentleman 15 seconds. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. sessions: i think what we did then was a tough decision and i'm sorry to hear now that we're being blamed for accepting the compromise out of the white house. i know what's happening and so do you, mr. speaker. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from california is recognized. mr. issa: mr. speaker, i yield myself such time as i may consume to close. mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. issa: the gentleman from texas was right. the president signed sequestration. the president asked for sequestration.
10:39 am
the president negotiated sequestration and the president had from this body alternatives to sequestration repeatedly. the minority in this body has not offered viable alternatives to sequestration. the majority, the democratic majority in the senate has done nothing to block sequestration. mr. hoyer: if the gentleman will yield? mr. issa: i yield 10 seconds. mr. hoyer: is the gentleman aware that two weeks ago and this week the majority has denied us the opportunity to offer an alternative? mr. issa: i am not aware of that but this is not a new bill. you had alternatives in the past. mr. speaker, i noticed as closing, i believe the other side is completely out of time, is that correct? the speaker pro tempore: yes. mr. issa: thank you, mr. speaker. as i close, i think it's important that we take mr. hoyer's very words. first of all he said mr. president before mr. speaker which got me to remind myself
10:40 am
that the president is the responsible for sequestration, something we're trying to avoid. the president has offered no viable alternatives to sequestration. the president avoided $5 trillion worth of new revenue because he wanted to say he was only sticking it to the rich or as mr. hoyer would say, those people who earn more money in 10 minutes than this amount. if you turn that around, the thing i want to -- everyone to understand that the gentleman from maryland said that is so right, this is only a quarter of a percent. he's right. this is a very small amount. it's $1 billion over the federal work force for the remainder of this fiscal year. and over the last two years, this is how much the increase has been. $3,328 or about $1,500, $1,600 a year is how much the federal work force has got in a pay increase while they were under a freeze. the only it's only a quarter of
10:41 am
a percent, when you see about a 5% increase in the last two years in actual compensation is the federal work force system, mr. speaker, includes basically automatic step increases for the vast majority of employees, meaning so many people who talked about how this was being devastating are forgetting the fact that while the american worker got little or no pay increase, the american family saw a deduction in their actual revenue, the federal work force enjoyed 2.5% increases while under a freeze. and, yes, mr. speaker, they will get another 2.5% increase this year even though we forgo this .2% pay increase. that's the -- .4% pay increase. people can come and talk about devastation, great sacrifice, a willingness to sacrifice but not so much while in fact every year that dedicated employee, the g-3 there as a nurse
10:42 am
assistant, she got this kind of an increase year after year after year, even during a pay freeze. we're not here to talk about today, the dedicated men and women, both in and out of uniform, but we have, and i want to commend all of those men and women who serve our country. but i want to commend them well saying that this is a small sacrifice. as mr. hoyer said, as the whip, the democratic whip, representative of the party of the president, this third-year pay freeze called initially for by the president in fact is not an absence of increases. the increases are significant to anyone listening to anyone in america. these are real increases they're getting while we're forgoing in this bill a quarter of a percent. so i want to thank the democratic whip. he made it very, very clear that in fact this is minuscule. to him this is not $1 billion, $11 billion over 10 years is
10:43 am
not enough to even spend two days of the congress on and perhaps he's right. perhaps we should have done much more. perhaps this small amount, this incredibly small amount, $274 the average employee for the remainder of this fiscal year is too little to pick up. but if it's too little to bother with, isn't it also too little to have so much opposition to? the fact is and the facts are stubborn, this is a small reduction in what would otherwise be a significant increase that they're going to get anyway. so, mr. speaker, as i urge my colleagues to vote for this, as i remind them that we have asked for this time and time again, that the president has not seen fit to keep up his own request, the president has not in fact been aware or willing to deal with the rest of the increases. he takes credit for what you would call a small quarter percent reduction and calls it
10:44 am
a freeze. the federal work force received a good compensation. the fact is when we go from $69,000 typical -- you know, median income of federal workers to $72,000 during a period of pay freeze, it reminds me of a can of soda that when you freeze it it doesn't change but the can ruptures because it is swelled. we have increased the actual compensation of payroll compensation to the federal work force by an average of $3,300 during a time in which the american people are told there's a freeze. and we will increase their pay an average of about $1,600 during this freeze if it becomes law. so mr. speaker, this is small, as the whip said. it is so small that i call on the members of the loyal opposition to be the kind of democratic party that understands that this is so small that they certainly should vote for it. it is not a great sacrifice.
10:45 am
it is a very small sacrifice. every federal worker eligible for step increases will see compensation increases, an average of $1,600 this year, while we're only foregoing $274. with that i urge support for this bill, yield back and call to question. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. all time has expired. pursuant to house resolution 66, the previous question is ordered on the bill. the question is on engrossment and third reading of the bill. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have it. third reading. mr. cummings: mr. speaker, ask for a recorded vote. . the speaker pro tempore: the question is now on the passage of the bill. so many as are in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have it. mr. issa: on that i ask for the yeas and nays. the speaker pro tempore: the yeas and nays are requested. all those in favor of taking this vote by the yeas and nays
10:46 am
will rise and remain standing until counted. a sufficient number having arisen, the yeas and nays are ordered. pursuant to clause 8 of rule 20, further proceedings on this motion will be postponed. for what purpose does the gentleman from texas seek recognition? mr. sessions: i send to the desk a privileged concurrent resolution and ask for its immediate consideration. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the concurrent resolution. the clerk: house concurrent resolution 15, resolved, when the house adjourns on any legislative day from friday, february 15, 2013, through thursday, february 21, 2013, on a motion offered pursuant to this concurrent resolution by its majority leader or his designee, it stand adjourned until 2:00 p.m. on monday, february 25, 2013, or until the time of any reassembly pursuant to section 2 of this concurrent resolution, which ever occurs
10:47 am
first. and that when the senate recesses or adjourns on friday, february 15, 2013, on a motion offered pursuant to this concurrent resolution by its majority leader or his designee, it stand recessed or adjourned until noon on monday, february 25, 2013, or such other time on that date as may be specified in the motion to recess or adjourn, or until the time of any reassembly pursuant to section 2 of this concurrent resolution, which ever occurs first. section 2, the speaker of the house and the majority leader of the senate or their respective designees acting jointly after consultation with the minority leader of the house and the minority leader of the senate shall notify the members of the house and the senate respectively to reassemble at such place and time as they may designate if in their opinion the public interest shall warrant it. the speaker pro tempore: the
10:48 am
question is on the concurrent resolution. so many as are in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have it. the gentleman from maryland is recognized. mr. cummings: request a recorded vote on this. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman asks for the yeas and nays? mr. cummings: yes. the speaker pro tempore: the yeas and nays are requested. those favoring a vote by the yeas and nays will rise. a sufficient number having arisen, the yeas and nays are ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. pursuant to clause 8 and clause 9 of rule 20, this 15-minute vote on adoption of house concurrent resolution 15 will be followed by phi minute votes on the passage of h.r. 273 and the motion to suspend the rules on house resolution 65. this is a 15-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]
10:49 am
10:50 am
10:51 am
10:52 am
10:53 am
10:54 am
10:55 am
10:56 am
10:57 am
10:58 am
10:59 am
11:00 am
11:01 am
11:02 am
11:03 am
11:04 am
11:05 am
11:06 am
11:07 am
11:08 am
11:09 am
11:10 am
11:11 am
the speaker pro tempore: the yeas are 222, the nays are 190, the concurrent resolution is agreed to. without objection, a the motion to reconsider is laid on the table. the unfinished business is the vote on passage of h.r. 273, on which yeas and nays are ordered. the clerk will report the title of the bill. the clerk: a bill to eliminate the 2013 statutory pay adjustment for federal employees. the speaker pro tempore: the question is on passage of the bill. members will record their votes by electronic device. this is a five-minute vote.
11:12 am
any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.] [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of epresentatives.
11:13 am
11:14 am
11:15 am
11:16 am
11:17 am
11:18 am
11:19 am
11:20 am
11:21 am
the speaker pro tempore: on this vote the yeas are 261. the nays are 154. the bill is passed. without objection, the motion to reconsider is laid upon the table. the unfinished business is the vote on the motion of the gentleman from california, mr. royce, to suspend the rules and agree to house resolution 615 -- 65, as amended, on which the yeas and nays were ordered. the clerk will report the title of the resolution. the clerk: house resolution 65,
11:22 am
resolution condemning the government of north korea for its flagrant and repeated violations of multiple united nations security council resolutions, for its repeated provocations that threaten international peace and stability, and for its february 12, 2013, test of a nuclear device. the speaker pro tempore: the question is, will the house suspend the rules and agree to the resolution as amended. members will record their votes by electronic device. this will be a five-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]
11:23 am
11:24 am
11:25 am
11:26 am
11:27 am
11:28 am
11:29 am
the speaker pro tempore: the yeas are 412, the nays are two. 2/3 being in the affirmative, the rules are suspended and the resolution is agreed to and without objection, the motion to reconsider is laid on the table.
11:30 am
the speaker pro tempore: order, please.
11:31 am
members take their conversations off the floor. for what purpose does the gentleman from new york seek recognition? >> i ask unanimous consent that i address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. the gentleman is recognized. mr. rangel: mr. speaker, i rise today to ask my colleagues to acknowledge the life and legacy of the late congresswoman colins. congresswoman collins was the first african-american women to represent new york. during her 20 years of service here, she boldly represented the 7th congressional district of illinois after the untimely death after -- of hire husband. she was the chair of the congressional black caucus and now i ask, mr. speaker, that all
11:32 am
of my colleagues to join with me in a moment of silence to honor congresswoman collins. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from pennsylvania rise? mr. thompson: request unanimous consent to address the house for one minute and revise and extend. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. >> mr. speaker, the house is not in order.
11:33 am
mr. thompson: thank you, mr. speaker. on tuesday the president stated that quote with renud confidence the state of the union is stronger. i would know the president would like that to be the case is that for the 23 unemployed americans who are struggling to make ends meet. the conference of americans renewed when they fill their oil tanks and gas tanks at record-high costs. is their confidence renewed when the data shows economy is shrinking for the first time in 3.5 years. it requires smart solutions but unlike the president, smart solutions means smaller government and not bigger
11:34 am
government and greater emphasis on promoting freedoms. lower taxes and fewer regulations to grow jobs. fewer restrictions on accessing energy under federal lands that can increase domestic energy supply. these are among the solutions we need, mr. speaker. and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from california rise? >> i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute and revise and stepped my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. waxman: 22 members of the house have banded together to create a safe climate conference to end the conspiracy of silence in this house of representatives about the dangers of climate change and the republican denial of its existence and their rejection of the science. we are committing to talk every
11:35 am
single day on the house floor about the urgent need to address climate change. president obama is leading the way. he says we must respond to climate change because to do otherwise would be to betray our children and future generations. we are ready to get to work. we understand the threat facing our children and we know our nation has the know-how and the ingenuity to avoid the worst impacts of climate change. but to do so, we must act now. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from texas rise? mr. poe: ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. poe: mr. speaker, mike, a truck driver pulled over at a rest stop. he noticed a young girl approaching multiple trucks. the girl who was under age came up to his cab and offered him sex for money. she seemed scared and he asked
11:36 am
her a few questions. she told him if she didn't bring in enough money for her trafficker, the beatings by him would get worse. thank goodness he had the courage to call for help. mike understands the signs through an organization called truckers against trafficking and called the resource center and authorities immediately arrived. the trafficker was arrested, put in jail and the girl was rescued. this is critical for our citizens to be educated about sex trafficking to end this scurge. america cannot continue to be silent while modern-day slavery is occurring in our community. and that's just the way it is. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentlelady from california rise? >> ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute and revise and stepped. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mrs. capps: i rise today to join my colleagues to address the
11:37 am
mediate and increasing threat of climate change. states and localities are responding but can't do it alone. i'm introducing two bills to help our communities to prepare for the future impacts of climate change. first is the coastal states climate change act and provides funding to coastal states and communities so they can plan and implement climate change mitigation projects such as habitat buffer zones and flood control systems. and the second bill is the water infrastructure resiliencey and sustainability act which provides water for local agencies. water agencies are concerned about the need to increase resiliency of our aging water infrastructure systems because they will be impacted. these critical infrastructure projects will not only improve public health and safety, but also help our local economies grow by providing jobs. mr. speaker, it is time to take
11:38 am
action on climate change. so i hope we can work together to pass these and other commonsense measures to address such a critical issue. and i yield back my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady yields back. for what purpose does the gentleman from pennsylvania rise? >> address the house for one minute. i rise today to urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support the strengthening background checks act of 2013. the tragedy at sandy hook elementary school has focused our collective attention how we can prevent senseless gun violence. important tool is the national instant criminal background check system. we put in place this system to keep guns out of the hands of dangerous people. this is failing. the nics data base has less than 20% of the records it should have. this is unacceptable. if you are a violent criminal,
11:39 am
you should fail a background check or if you have been committed to a mental institution, you should fail the background check. no one argues with that. if the information is not in the data base, and these dangerous individuals can get their hands on guns with devastating consequences. my bill would partner with the federal government and maintain an accessible and up to date ncis. this has the support of voices on both sides of the gun debate. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. for what purpose does gentlelady from california rise? without objection. >> for -- ms. matsui: our country has ignored the warning signals that climate change is real from droughts toll wildfires to
11:40 am
stream flooding. the time to act is now. numerous reports indicate that we are close to losing the window of opportunity to address climate change. my district of sacramento has been working hard to implement commonsense policies that reduce greenhouse gas emissions by developing clean energy technology and creating energy retrofit programs. my constituents understand the urgent need to tackle this issue head on. now it's time for congress to follow their lead and show we are committed to mitigating the devastating effects of climate change. failure to heed new warnings and take action will have drastic and environmental effects not just for our generation but for our children and grandchildren. the time to act is now. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady yields back. for what purpose does the gentleman from north carolina rise?
11:41 am
>> i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. >> mr. speaker, the recent school massacres atlanta newtown connecticut sent shock waves across our country and i greeved with the loved ones. i vowed i would take action to prevent future tragedy. according to a recent poll, 53% of americans believe increasing police presence at schools would have an effective effect on preventing future tragedies. and after speaking with local law enforcement, superintendents and principals in my district, it is the best path forward and that is why i will be introducing the protect america's schools act today. this legislation would revitalize the cops in schools grant program which has not been
11:42 am
funded since fiscal year 2005 and fund it at $30 million annually. the program is specifically designed to assist local law enforcement agencies in the hiring of new officers. and with the 16.4 -- $16.4 trillion debt, we must take action, but we must be fiscally responsible and the $30 million to pay for this critical grant program would be taken by taking the unspent funds from the national oceanic and atmospheric administration. the bill is not the only answer but a critical step forward to protect our nation's children. keeping our children safe is not an area that only has one side, but it is an agreement that both political parties can find common ground. lawmakers, we have a moral obligation to make sure that we do just that. i yield back.
11:43 am
the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from california rise? >> ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. >> san diego the largest metropolitan area for military personnel and my district is home to seven military installations and sequestration will have a broad and devastating effect. in total defense spending is responsible for 25% of san diego's g.d.p. that means one out of every $4 in san diego is achieved as a result of defense spending. the proposed cuts will cost san diego more than 30,000 defense-related jobs and the navy will be forced to put a freeze on hiring civilians, many of whom are veterans. with 11.% of our community unemployed and shocking 25% of veterans between 18 and 24 struggling to find employment, any further reduction in job opportunities for our nation's heroes is unacceptable.
11:44 am
we can neither threaten with cuts nor can we fail the brave men and women of the armed forces who have already sacrificed so much. pleas bring an end to the gridlock and find solutions that do not put undue burdens on those who defend our freedom. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentlelady from florida rise? ms. wasserman schultz: permission to address the house for one minute and revise and stepped my remarks. i rise today to recognize eva britain for her 25 years of service to the people of south florida. she began her career in 1998 after raising five sons and became a congressional staffer for former congressman smith and then peter deutch and for the last eight years and has been working with me in my district
11:45 am
office. her service and depth of experience has benefited thousands of my constituents. she is a much loved staffer who brings her joy, light and smile to my office every single day whether she is helping someone set up a tour or greeting constituents on the phone, she does it with ease and elegant grace. on behalf of the quints of florida's 23rd congressional district, we thank her for her dedication to our office, our state and our country. i yield back. . . ms. lee: in the state of the union address this week, president obama laid out a powerful vision for our nation. one that would create jobs, pear down areas and lift the most vulnerable out of poverty. at the same time the republican-controlled house has yet to bring a bill to the floor
11:46 am
to prevent the unconscionable budget sequester from slashing thousands of jobs and pushing poor and low-income individuals over the edge. as the president said this week, we cannot grow the economy by shifting the cost of health care or college on to families that are already struggling or by forcing our communities to lay off more teachers, more firefighters, and more police officers. we must reject the sequester and he reject proposals that would balance the budget on the backs of seniors, veterans, and low-income families. everyone should have the opportunity to climb, strive, and reap the awards of the american cream. that is how we build our -- dream. that is how we build our economy for all and create a better world for our children. thank you, i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady yields back. for what purpose does the gentleman from missouri rise? without objection.
11:47 am
mr. cleaver: i rise today to call on my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to help our communities deal with changing climate and the last two years alone our country's dealt with destructive wildfires in the west, flooding on the missouri and mississippi rivers, a devastating hurricane in the northeast, and the worst drought since the dust bowl, climate change preparations and adaptation is about risk management. a as ben franklin said, an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. spending a small amount now saves as much suffering and spending -- much suffering and if we understand this is going to happen again and again. because climate change is real, we are going to address this over and over and over again on this floor. and some people might say that there is no such thing as climate change. you can say that water is not wet, but it doesn't make it so. i yield back.
11:48 am
the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. for what purpose does the gentlelady from arizona rise? >> i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. >> the first district native americans make up about 25% of my constituents. unfortunately, native american women are 2 1/2 times more likely to be assaulted in their lifetime than other women. re-authorizing the violence against women act is important to my district. that's why i'm very concerned about the impact of sequestration cuts on programs supported by the violence against women act. more than $20 million in cuts are at stake. what does a $20 million cut mean? it means thousands more victims would be denied shelter and legal services. it means thousands fewer police officers, prosecutors, judges,
11:49 am
and victim advocates would get specialized training. as a former prosecutor, i know we need to do all we can to keep victims safe and hold perpetrators accountable. mrs. kirkpatrick: that means we need to do all we can to stop these sequestration cuts. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady yields back. for what purpose does the gentleman from california rise. without objection. >> thank you, mr. speaker. mr. speaker, i'm honored to represent the second district of california which spans from the golden gate bridge to the oregon border. mine is a district with hundreds of miles of pristine coastline with numerous rivers and cold water fisheries, with abe shent -- ancient forests and red wood trees and cities located right
11:50 am
up against san francisco bay. it's a district where unique climactic factors have combined to create some of the world's greatest wine apellations. we know in the second district of california we cannot wait to address the threat of climate change. on the state level i have fought to defend and awk sessfully implement california's world leading greenhouse gad reduction law for the past six years, but that is not enough. we need leadership here at the federal level. if we fail to act, mr. speaker, the livelihoods of fishermen, crabbers, foresters, and others in my district are going to suffer great harm. mr. huffman: the cost of congress continuing to bury its head on the issue of climate change is simply too great. so i am proud to be joining other colleagues with chairman waxman in the safe climate caucus and to take this cause to the national level. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. for what purpose does the gentleman from new jersey rise.
11:51 am
without objection. >> mr. speaker, yesterday i interdutiesed a resolution to designate march as national colorectal cancer awareness month. i want to thank senators loudenberg and others for introducing a similar resolution in the senate. mr. payne: i want to thank the entire new jersey delegation and all those who signed on to this bipartisan resolution. this issue is very personal to me as i lost my father, the late congressman donald payne senior, to colon cancer just last march. it became my mission to raise awareness of the importance of cancer screening. while colorectal cancer is one of the most preventable forms of cancer, it remains the second leading cause of cancer deaths in the united states. in new jersey alone, 1,600 people will die of this disease this year. african-americans and hispanics are at increased risk.
11:52 am
too many people forgo screenings because of the perceptions around testing. but i am here to tell you, be a man. get tested. you just might save your own life. thank you, mr. speaker. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. for what purpose does the gentleman from ohio rise. >> permission to address the house for one minute. revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. ryan: thank you, mr. speaker. i rise this morning to say thank you. thank you to president obama a couple nights ago at the state of the union. he mentioned youngstown, ohio, and the national addive manufacturing innovation institute that is a partnership between the department of commerce, energy, defense, and private partnerships about $70 million to advance additive manufacturing innovation in the
11:53 am
military and energy and health care that will transform and revolutionize manufacturing. and i wanted to rise this morning to also say thank you to all of our partners which ranges from cleveland to akron to youngstown to pittsburgh all the way down into west virginia. the old russ belt has -- rust belt has made a comeback. we are on our way as we did many, many years ago to revolutionize manufacturing again. this will lead to great opportunities for our young people to come back, institutions like case western reserve, carnegie mellon, youngstown state, university of akron, lehigh, penn state, west virginia university all coming together working as a team. we now have landed this institute and we will once again be the hub of manufacturing. thank you, president obama, and thank you to all the men and women who have helped put this thing together. yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back.
11:54 am
the chair places before the house the following request. the clerk: leave of absence requested for mr. culberson of texas for today, and ms. jackson lee of texas for today. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the requests are granted. under the speaker's announced policy of january 3, 2013, the gentleman from arizona, mr. franks, is recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the majority leader. mr. franks: i thank you, mr. speaker. mr. speaker, my comments today are heavily contribute to from author of the nature of war, ron tyra. i want to acknowledge him. he's a noted military expert, noted national security expert, and i appreciate so very much his seminal contribution to these comments. mr. speaker, a nuclear iran
11:55 am
poses a severe and unfamiliar risk to the united states and its allies. we have to be very careful not to mistakenly assume that a relatively stable balance of deterrence, similar to the nuclear equilibrium between the united states and the soviet union during the cold war can be achieved with iran. a nuclear iran represents a very different type of threat that simply cannot be managed. a nuclear iran would serve to incentivize the development of nuclear weapons by many other regional powers in the middle east. such as saudi arabia, egypt, and turkey. mr. speaker, a multipolar nuclear crisis is much harder to manage than anything we have experienced or did experience during the cold war. we could all just imagine for a moment the so-called chicken game, but instead of two
11:56 am
drivers, imagine five drivers, mr. speaker, each speeding from different directions to converge on the same intersection. all of this in addition to the other characteristics of the middle east such as unstable regimes and the danger of nuclear weapons falling into the hands of al qaeda or other terrorist groups. consider gaddafi's libya, mr. speaker, with several nuclear warheads. who knows where they might be now. and where would the world be today if syria's assad had managed to complete his nuclear bomb making efforts? therefore, mr. speaker, the only viable u.s. policy is one of preventing iran from going nuclear, not this delusional notion of containing a nuclear iran. indeed, prevention is the stated policy objective of this president and his top advisors. the problem is not with the stated policy, but with the strategy that is supposed to achieve it.
11:57 am
mr. speaker, the facts on the ground reveal that our policy objectives are not turning into reality. nearly all previous red lines demarcated by america and its allies over the nuclear iran's nuclear ambition have now been crossed with very few repercussions to he show for iran's defiance. iran is now enriching uranium in quantities, enrichment levels, and facilities that would have tried -- terrified the entire free world only a few years ago. needless at this very moment a defiant iran is forcing ahead with ballistic missiles, detonators, and other components essential to nuclear weaponization. mr. speaker, why do we find it so challenging to realize our policy objectives? why is the world's soul superpower unable to impose its will on a country whose g.d.p. is comparable with that of arbegin tina? and why -- argentina? and why many of those back as
11:58 am
far as arms deals with the johnson and nixon administration. mr. speaker, one of the key enabling factors for iran's nuclear weapon development is the perception of a lack of symmetry between iranian and american seriousness and determination regarding the nuclear program. but for iran, it is of the utmost importance, and the regime is willing to take risks and pay high prices to achieve its objectives or at least this is certainly how it postures. mr. speaker, iran is successfully deterring its adversaries and positioning itself as ready to face a confrontation even if its deep rooted weakness make it unlikely it could ever withstand such a direct conflict. mr. speaker, it's time for us to be candid in questioning the strategic perspectives of covert and clandestine operations as important as they are.
11:59 am
while the resourcefulness of our intelligence community is unquestionable, and while covert and clandestine operations may create some damage on iran's nuclear program, they cannot and have not been effective in convincing iran to abandon its nuclearization policy. more significantly, covert and clandestine activities create an illusion of, quote, something being done. thus appearing to justify the fact that we continue to let more and more time pass. mr. speaker, we have to realize that covert operations simply cannot be the primary means by which we expect to deter iran. if prevention is our real commitment and not merely lip service, then we must deal with that iranian nuclear challenge immediately and not later. every day that passes, iran grows more dangerously close to realizing its nuclear ambition
12:00 pm
and becoming virtually untouchable militarily. in the face of that reality, the more breathtaking reality is that it seems both the iranian and the american administrations favor wasting more time. iran because it allows them to forge ahead towards completion, and the obama administration because it allows them to postpone difficult decisions which would necessitate actual leadership from the white house. . the president 's ends are at odds with our actual response and this raises a host of questions as to the credibility of either the administration's true intent or it's chosen strategies. almost unimaginable how much further american strategic credit built would deteriorate if iran acquires the bombs. credit built questions also
12:01 pm
abound with regards to the administration's reasoning against military action. time and again, administration officials argue that the futility of military action is real since allegedly some of the nuclear missiles are difficult to reach and military action may postponemilitary action by a couple of years. mr. speaker, this is a peculiar argument at the very least. any nuclear production asset that is destroyed can be eventually be rebuilt. chasing each and every centrifuge whether it is stashed away is an ineffective strategy. why does the administration advocate such a strategy? our strategic challenge is iran's policy of pursuing a military nuclear capability. it is not necessary not even mostly that iran is currently in possession of certain nuclear
12:02 pm
production assets. it is iran's policy that must be altered. production assets will then inherently follow. to realize its objectives, the u.s. must compel iran to alter its policy of acquiring a military nuclear capability and enforce that policy change over time. if we fail to deprive iran of nuclear weapons, we will ultimately have to face more dangerous challenges than those associated with preventing it from going nuclear. consider the dangers for a moment of conducting a second operations to free kuwait, only this time, once it's been taken over by a nuclear arms, iran and none of this touches upon once they get nuclear weapons even a strategic reach to our own shores. it's a sad day when the vacuum
12:03 pm
of leadership in the white house has allowed iran to posture more credibly than america in spite of wielding a much smaller stick. they are more strategically effective than we are. the administration has been trying for a long time to talk its way out of this challenge or to bluff its way out of the challenge by moving military assets up and down the gulf and therefore has made it doubtful that any further such statements or deployment can sufficient ice to get the job done. the demark occasion of the administration's risk tolerance which any observer of its actions cap the ends it can reasonably expect to realize. so, mr. speaker, this brings us to the critical question that everyone should be asking themselves, if this administration is so deterred by
12:04 pm
a pre-nuclear iran, how would it ever face up to a nuke collar -- nuclear-armed iran. to date, conflicting policies, mr. speaker, the united states has not been able to alter iran's policy of acquiring nuclear weapons. mr. speaker, we are running out of time to do things differently. with that, mr. speaker, i would yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the speaker pro tempore: under the speaker's announced policy of janch 3, 2013, the gentleman from texas is recognized for 50 minutes as the designee of the
12:05 pm
majority leader. mr. gohmert: i would like to yield to my friend from north dakota such time as he may consume. . mr. cramer: today i dropped in the hopper my first bill as a member of the united states house of representatives. it is a bill that corrects oversight. the energy policy act of 2005 established a federal permit streamlining pilot project to improve the processing of oil and gas permitting to onshore federal lands. the b.m. -- b.l.m. field office was included. the city office serves north and south dakota. without the dakotas included. north and south dakota permits are excluded from this program.
12:06 pm
permitting to drill on federal lands has exceeded 225 days for the past four years when state permits on non-federal lands take only 10 days to process. with the passage of this bill, more land will be open to a program that seeks to reduce this sluggish pace and oil and natural gas explorers will have more work to do sooner. beyond the mediate benefits of this bill, i hope it begins a conversation of more extensive reform to the permitting process. the oil and gas revolution in the united states has the potential to lead us out of this economic slump. i believe america's national security and america's economic security are tied directly to america's energy security. and i urge my colleagues to pass this bill as my friends work to pass the same legislation in the senate. thank you, mr. speaker, and i yield back.
12:07 pm
mr. gohmert: mr. speaker, i want to follow up on what my friend, mr. franks, was talking about with regard to iran. it should be pretty clear to most people that iran is a threat to any group of people who believe that we do not need a religious zealot telling us how we have to live. that we do not need someone taking over arising out of the chaos to create a one-world caliphate under which we have to live with a ruling religious zealot making sure we do not get involved in any type of self-government that they believe leads to depravity.
12:08 pm
we cannot give iran more power to wipe out israel that they refer to as the little satan or wipe out the united states that their leaders refer to as the big satan. yet we have nominated by the president of the united states, a man who thinks we need to cozy up to iran. his idea of national security is cozying up to a country whose made very clear they want to destroy israel and they want to destroy us. so for those yesterday who saw that the senate did not move forward, was not able to get the votes to move forward on a confirmation vote on former
12:09 pm
senator hagel, they must be very upset if they think cozying up to iran and betraying israel further than this administration already has, if they think that's a good idea, closer to iran, betray israel, yesterday was a bad day and you should be very angry with most of the senate republicans and especially my friend senator ted cruz, because they happen to be concerned about our ally israel and concerned about threats of madmen running the country of iran. so if you look, though, at the speeches that have come out after senator hagel had said all
12:10 pm
things were made public and then this stuff keeps trickling out, another speech, hey, let's put a consulate in iran while they are trying to destroy us and apparently some people can't remember past 10, 12 years and i think it's important to remember our history. 1979, i was at fort beening, georgia in the united states army and some of us haven't forgotten what was happening. and as we have seen new things arise, as we have seen the horrors of what is going on in the middle east, it is just heartbreaking to see people propose as leaders, who absolutely refuse to learn from history. a man proposed for secretary of defense, who cannot recall what
12:11 pm
those of us who were in the military in 1979 recall, and that is that we had a president in jimmy carter, who thought it was a good idea for the shah of iran to be gone. not a nice man. had not treated well the people of iran, but had been able to hold down the radical islamic jihadist who want to terrorize everybody who don't believe exactly like they do. in fact, it was president carter that as the khomeini came back from exile and took control of iran, it was president carter that hailed him as a man of peace. not realizing that what president carter by his actions
12:12 pm
and inactions had allowed to happen was the arising of the radical islamic jihaddists that would bring about for over 30 years to come, the deaths of thousands and thousands of americans, some civilians, some innocent -- i'm sorry, some civilians, some from foreign country, some military, some having to fight the people that president carter and -- he had no ill will, he wanted what was best for america, but he was just ignorant of what he was doing. he was a president for which could have been said forgive him lord, he knows not what he has done. and he led to the consequences we're suffering still today. radical islam is not our friend.
12:13 pm
they want to eliminate us from the map. they think moral did he praffity is the rule in this western civilization and need a grand imam, anticipating the 12th imam to come and establish the global caliphate. and now we have a secretary of defense proposed who wants to repeat the same errors that led to the deaths of so many americans. he wants to put consulate in tehran. he thinks that would be a grand idea to help our relation. i don't personally understand how it will help the united states relations to put a consulate back in tehran with leaders of iran saying they want to wipe out infidels, like those
12:14 pm
that would be put at the consulate, like those that were at the the consulate in benghazi, only to have that horrible nightmare replayed before new generations. and yet, there are people like majority leader reid who say it's games being played, school boy games being played by people who have a general you -- genuine interest in not repeating the errors of our recent history. is 34 years ago so far away that we can't remember that we want a secretary of defense that wants to placate radical jihaddists? that's the only thing he hasn't done is repeat the phrase, man of peace, talking about the
12:15 pm
leader of iran. so i'm very grateful to all of those, like ted cruz, who stood up yesterday and said there is too much information we don't know and what we know causes concern. . some say what does that have to do with defense? and therefore what does it have to do with the secretary of defense? there are some that might be tempted to repeat secretary clinton's question of what difference does it make. and as a history major in college who continues to read and study all the history i can, history in the making now,
12:16 pm
i would like for the secretary of state and secretary of defense to be able to recall 34 years and note the mistakes that have been made that got americans killed. 1979 was an act of war against the united states. and instead of defending ourselves and putting down what had occurred in the attack on our embassy, which under everybody's definition is an act of war, instead of doing that, we had a weak administration that simply begged the iranians to let our people go. please. that is seen as weakness when you're dealing with terrorists, when you're dealing with people who promote terrorism, when you are dealing with people who pay for terrorism and encourage terrorism. that is what we have reigning
12:17 pm
in iran. so it's a legitimate concern of who the secretary of defense will be and will it be a throwback to the carter years of thinking the best way to deal with radical islamic jihadists is to give them whatever they want. that's been tried. it doesn't work. heck, this administration is still trying to buy off the radical islamic jihadists that make up the taliban. this administration has gone so far as to say, look, you only have to agree to quit killing americans if you'll just agree to sit down with us and negotiate. if you'll do that you can keep killing american soldiers, that's ok, if you just agree to sit down with us and as you're killing american soldiers,
12:18 pm
we'll show you good will. we'll buy you an incredibly nice office in qatar that will give you an international presence and will give you credibility around the world as you keep trying to kill americans and continue to actually kill americans. about three years ago dana rohrabacher asked me to go with him to meet with northern alliance leaders, and we met with them and these were leaders who put their lives on the line to fight with and for america. they're muslims, but they did not like the idea of radical islamic jihadists being in control of afghanistan. they were and are the enemy of our enemy. so with less than 500 people --
12:19 pm
500 americans put into afghanistan after we figured out that's where the attacks imnated because that's where the training occurred -- emanated because that's where the training occurred, that's where the terrorist camps were, less than 500 americans, special ops and intelligence, and those four months that followed should be hailed as one of the greatest days for american special ops and intelligence. the intelligence community has made plenty of mistakes. that was a great time, because without a single loss of american lives, the northern alliance, these tribal groups that this administration now refers to as war criminals because they defeated our enemies for us, they fought and defeated the taliban.
12:20 pm
by early 2002, the taliban had been routed. some people forget nowadays that during the course of the iraq war they would refer back to afghanistan and say now that's how you fight in a foreign country like afghanistan. you let patriots who know the country, know the terrain, know the tactics of our enemy, let them fight them. we gave them arms. we gave them aerial support, and they defeated the taliban for us. then, as our northern alliance allies told me and dana rohrabacher -- steve king was there for the first meeting -- they told us, look, after we defeated the taliban for you, then you tell us we got to turn back in the arms that gave us the ability to defeat the taliban because you told us,
12:21 pm
look, we're the united states. now that the taliban's been defeated, we got you covered. there won't be any more problems. we're in charge. and we added tens of thousands of people to afghanistan and became occupiers in afghanistan . and, again, those who know history -- and i do mean distant and more recent history -- you know, occupiers really don't do well in that part of the world. and some would say, alexander the great conquered the afghanistan area. and my reply would be, he died on the way out. i don't consider that a real great victory. but we had a grand strategy letting the enemy of our enemies, the northern alliance, defeat the taliban for us, and now 11 years later we have been
12:22 pm
occupying afghanistan, we forced a constitution on them that required a centralized government in a place where centralized governments have not done well. we forced that on them, and we included the provision that made afghanistan all under shahrya law. the results of that grand victory in early 2002 and our ominous occupation, 11 years since, has been that the last christian public worship service has happened. there are no more public christian worship services in the country where we have lost so many valiant american heroes
12:23 pm
. the last person who admits to being jewish in afghanistan has left. it's what we've been advised. all under our watch and what we've done in that country. the president announced right here just tuesday night of this week about his plans to drawdown american troops and to be all out within the next couple years, and i would humbly submit that if he had a better plan -- and it's very simple -- we could be out of there within the next six months. and it would be far more effective as our northern alliance friends, former vice president massoud, who knows about losing loved ones, who
12:24 pm
lost his brother, great hero of afghanistan, he knows about losing his father-in-law to the taliban, to a man, a taliban member who was invited to sit down with massoud's father-in-law to talk about potential peace. karzai had appointed massoud's father-in-law to be his peace embassary to sit down with the taliban and try to work out an agreement. so he came down to sit down with massoud's father-in-law and blew himself and massoud's father-in-law to pieces. great gesture of peace.
12:25 pm
that's the kind of people we're dealing with. that's the same kind of people that are in leadership in iran that chuck hagel wants to go have better relationships with. and i would submit that whoever he were willing to see in tehran, as our ambassador there , would have a high probability of suffering the same consequences that massoud's father-in-law did, the same that his brother did. his brother, such a great warrior, political figure, great charisma, his case he was asked to give an interview to a television crew. he consented not being aware that the television camera was
12:26 pm
full of explosives and that the cameraman and the reporter were willing to blow themselves up so they could kill such a great afghani hero. so they did and he's gone. how many americans are we going to have to continue to lose in afghanistan? talking to billy and karen vaughn, the parents of great american patriot aaron vaughn, seal team six member, one of the seal team that went after osama bin laden who don't want publicity while they're seal members actively. they don't seek it, don't want it and there's always been agreement that no administration will -- who goes in and does the kind of actions
12:27 pm
that seal team six did taking out osama bin laden. that's classified information who went and got him, and then we have the vice president of the united states stand up in front of a crowd and congratulate the seal team for taking him out. one seal team member, his father who is deceased now, but his father said that his daughter-in-law called and said within an hour of the vice president outing seal team six they had a marine guard outside her quarters because they knew this administration just put a big red target on his entire family. billy and karen say after that happened, aaron called and said, mom, dad, there's been
12:28 pm
chatter. you're not safe. take any reference to me off facebook, off any email, off anything. you cannot have references that you're connected with me or you will be a target. these people are ruthless. so after seal team six is outed and having visited afghanistan, i was surprised as widespread as taliban reach has become again in afghanistan, missions were run through the afghan government so that the afghans would have known exactly where seal team six was and where they were being sent. and when one of the surviving parents of one of our heroic seal team six members asked at the briefing as to what had happened to their loved ones in
12:29 pm
the afghanistan ambush of our troops, of our seal team six members, one of the parents asked, look, since you knew this was such a hot spot, since you knew this information had been cleared through the afghan government, which has taliban running through it, since you knew all these things about how desperate the situation was in that space, why didn't you just send in a drone? and the admiral briefing the family members said, because we're trying to win their hearts and minds. now, that sounds like something the new secretary of defense might say since he's all for buddying back up to iran while they want to destroy our way of life and all americans. yeah, we're trying to win their hearts and minds. so let's send more people into
12:30 pm
tehran as the proposal or was the proposal of secretary of defense nominee hagel, let's send some people. yeah, maybe they get blown up. that's what he should have said. because there was a good chance they will. some of us warned about the dangers of helping the revolutionaries in libya. gaddafi had blood on his hands, but ever since 2003 he has helped suppress radical islamic jihadist activities. . he had become an ally and the white house has no problem as they did with our northern alliance allies, throwing them under the bus, throwing gaddafi under the bus and even our own ambassador was
12:31 pm
a sacrificial lamb. this is not a good idea helping them in libya when we know there is al qaeda involved in this revolution. we don't know how widespread it is, but you can't help people who are trying to destroy us. they will have a greater reach to wipe out israel or trying to wipe out us. but this president didn't listen. his cabinet members didn't listen. we were told he didn't care what congress thought. he was listening more to european members who wanted help protecting their oil they were buying from libya and because the o.i.c., the 57 states that
12:32 pm
make up the o.i.c. and i'm like the president, i get mixed up. said he has been to all 57 states, our president had and we get confused. do we have 57 states in the o.i.c. -- they have 50, we have 50. it's confusing and i understand the president having that problem, but apparently they have 57 states because they count palestine. we call it palestine in east texas. but they don't learn from history. and as a result, we helped -- we provided weapons, those are the latest reports, and some of those weapons then found their way to algeria where more americans were killed more recently than 9/11 last year,
12:33 pm
with people we helped empower so they could go about killing more people. and i really expected -- because i like president obama as a person, he is a good family man. i was hoping with all the disclosures that have come out since 9/11 of last year, and since we now know from former secretary panetta and from other witnesses that after the president learned that our ambassador was under attack, he may have known that he may have been abducted and that a long battle was being undertaken by radicals against our americans in benghazi. we now know the president did
12:34 pm
nothing else. well, do what you can, in essence, and went home. maybe he was home when he talked to him. and did nothing else. i have no idea that the president required a sleep aid that night, if he did, anybody else who has trouble sleeping that night, better get what he did because it worked well. how the president could sleep well that night as the ambassador he put in place, that he put in harm's way was either under attack or he had been kidnapped, being brutalized, unspeakable things being done to his person, to his body. i remember senator clinton running a commercial back in
12:35 pm
2008 that asked the question, who do you want to take that phone call at 3:00 a.m. this would have been exactly the kind of situation except there was no phone call at 3:00 a.m. the phone call had been at 5:00 or so in the afternoon. and there was no effort to find out, by the way, what happened to ambassador stevens that i put in harm's way, equivalent to a four-star general in civilian service. to wait to find out the next day that it had been over seven hours of attacks, that our last american that we know of killed, was killed in the last hour of that seven-hour attack, and i can appreciate the loyalty of
12:36 pm
cabinet members, joint chiefs trying to protect the president, coming forward and saying, well, you know, we didn't have planes that would have to be refueled, that would have to be armed, and i would submit if we can't get a jet that can fly, 600 miles an hour, 600 miles or so to libya, we can't get him there in an hour and a half, that it's time to clean house at the top of our defense people to get people to get planes to help our embattled american civilians and ambassador -- get him some help. i mean, i would think that if you're concerned enough to sit and watch footage of the hurricane coverage, people that you didn't put in harm's way
12:37 pm
they were in, that you would at least be concerned about the people you did put in harm's way. and certainly the president and secretary clinton and secretary panetta, certainly those people did not want them hurt, but it's important to learn from history. it's important to understand what difference it makes as to what happened -- what happens about fiascos that get americans killed. it is important and does make a difference. we read reports that ambassador rice may have been involved with the decision not to send more security to our embassy that was attacked back in the 1990's that got americans killed and apparently no one learned from
12:38 pm
that, because if someone in the 1990's after our embassy had been attacked and had adequate hearings and gotten to the bottom of that, they would have learned what difference does it make, well, it makes a difference because we know when an embassy requests security and refuse to provide it, there's a good chance they are going to get hit and going to get killed and would have been helpful to have that conventional wisdom and the institutional knowledge on 9/10 of 2012 when we were hearing if you don't release the blind sheik, you are going to get attacked, your embassies may get attacked. and if we had people in this administration with institutional knowledge from the 1990's and from 1979, they would
12:39 pm
have said, you know what, actually on 9/9, 9 lsh 9 of 2011, they are giving us a warning. we weren't releasing the blind sheik and i hope and pray we don't. he is a killer and will kill again. he doesn't carry them out. he plots and plans and gives instructions and under all criminal law in the u.s. aprod, you plan it, you instruct on it and your instructions are followed and people are killed, then you committed murder as well. so the blind sheik is a murderer. if we had learned from those lessons in the past, the difference it would have made is that ambassador stevens should still be alive today and could be coming before congress
12:40 pm
explaining what goes wrong and know the difference that would make is in the future, we could save other ambassadors and other consulate workers. now, i have read accounts that apparently the seal team members, former seal team members, the two that responded, had been advised, don't go. so it has to be a little bit hurtful for their families to know that their sons, their husbands, brothers, had been ordered not to go help at benghazi and they disobeyed their instructions and went and helped any way. and that as people came before congress to testify, the
12:41 pm
military, having been given the instructions not to go, civilian service instructions not to go, credit for disregarding their instructions and trying to go and save lives any way. how ironic. how ironic. well, american lives are still at stake in north africa, in the middle east, in afghanistan, around the world, here at home. and if we continue to put people in place indecision-making positions who do not understand that you cannot buy off a school yard bully and you cannot buy off radical islamic jihaddists that want to destroy you, we're going to continue to have americans lose their lives.
12:42 pm
i mentioned on this floor before what one american soldier in afghanistan told me over there, says, i don't mind laying down my life for my country, but please don't waste it. we have such heroes in the service of the united states. and they're asking, please, we'll follow orders. just don't waste our willingness to lay down our lives for others. but that's the american tradition. even going back to the hawaii statute, we were talking about some people this week in the hallway directly below where i am right here, father damien, cagget lick priest heard about the lepers being thrown off ships put on an island in hawaii to die, having no quality of life.
12:43 pm
horrors of existence. so he went to give them a quality of life, to give them a society, so they could live out their last life-diseased years. he acquired the disease and died and the words on top of his statue, right below me, apply to our military members, apply to those in our u.s. service, because the words on those top two lines of that plaque say greater love has no one than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends. john 15. . 13. we have people willing to lay
12:44 pm
down their lives for their country and would beg the president to appoint a secretary of defense who will not waste american lives trying to buddy up to radical islamic jihaddists in control in iran, who will not demonize any further than former senator hagel already has, israelis, and the jewish members of an administration who just want to protect our country, because we find out in prior speeches and prior comments from the nominee, secretary of defense nominee hagel, that he has complained before that one of the big problems is that the state department is controlled by jews. that's fine by me. they're americans. care about america. but that's a problem for him.
12:45 pm
not a problem for me as long as any jewish or any caucasian or minority serving this country understands israel is our friend, they're our ally and they are the greatest democracy anywhere in that area. so let's don't disparage our alley and don't think we can throw israel under the bus as we did mubarak and as we did gaddafi and the northern alliance in afghanistan, as we have done -- this administration has done with others. don't throw israel under the bus. let's stop doing that to our friends and let's recognize the real enemy. and i hope and pray the president will withdraw this nomination. and if he doesn't, that we will continue to have senators say,
12:46 pm
you can't have somebody serve as a cabinet-level position like former senator hagel, who thinks israel is the problem and jews in the state department are the problem and that iran is a group of leaders -- has a group of leaders in it that we need to buddy up to. and if the president will do that, he will see a welcoming of bipartisanship. you'll see it explode on both sides of the aisle welcoming the president doing the right thing by our friend, israel. . . and i hope people will stand as firmly as they did those who voted against bringing chuck hagel to the floor for a vote for a nomination. i hope they'll stand firm. so proud of new senator ted cruz. he's doing great.
12:47 pm
lindsey graham made some great points yesterday, and i hope he'll stand by those. he's a good man. he just needs to stand by what he said. if we'll do that, we will help make the world a better place and we'll show the country true bipartisanship. and with that, mr. speaker, i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back his time.
12:48 pm
12:49 pm
12:50 pm
12:51 pm
12:52 pm
12:53 pm
12:54 pm
12:55 pm
12:56 pm
12:57 pm
12:58 pm
12:59 pm
1:00 pm
the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from texas seek recognition? mr. gohmert: i move that the house do now hereby adjourn. the speaker pro tempore: the question is on the motion to adjourn. so many as are in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have it. the motion is agreed to. aaccordingly, pursuant to house concurrent resolution 15, 113th congress, the house stands adjourned until 2:00 p.m. on
1:01 pm
monday, february 25, 2013. >> the house is now out for the presidents day break. the house will be back on monday, february 25, and we will have live coverage on c-span. in a minute we will take you back to the capitol where nancy pelosi will call on congress to stay in session to address citgo station. we will take you live to the capitaol. in the meantime, the reaction to the hagel nomination and other items in the news.
1:02 pm
host: hagel makes histroy. this is the headline in "the baltimore sun." we see headlines refer to the filibuster. the headline in "roll call,." here to tell us more is a reporter. thank you for talking with us. how unusual is it that the president's pick for defense secretary blocked at this stage of the game? guest: extraordinarily unusual. the senate make history in doing so. the most bizarre thing, the thing that is probably most frustrating to people watching is that former senator hagel is
1:03 pm
a former republican senator, and the reason why it was 58 votes is because harry reid switched his vote to no soap the senate can bring it back up again. you have a lot of republican senators who were saying last week that they did not want to see it go up in filibuster. at least it would be an up-down of the to be approved. there was no precedent to filibuster a choice like this. and the republicans decided they wanted to use this vote as a way to extract more information from the white house on issues like the terrorist attack in benghazi in september, and so they are
1:04 pm
committed to passing a goal when they come back. the way you are looking at it, it is a tedious exercise in delaying the inevitable. chuck hagel will be confirmed. he will just have to wait 11 days. you should confirm him because you are going to confirm him anyway. it is just another delay in what the senate is trying to do. host: harry reid set a new vote for tuesday, in 11 days. what do republicans want to see in the meantime? guest: they say they would like answers again from the white house, more details about what the president did and did not do in the hours following the terrorist attack in libya. the white house sent a letter to senators john mccain,
1:05 pm
lindsey gramm, kelly ayotte, who have been demanding more information. they hoped from soundness yesterday or the day before that they would be able to change minds and make these centers -- senators vote yes. there is information that republicans say they want. it also seems like they were unhappy with his pick, they wanted -- wanted a different tack, and they did not -- they did not want to be conciliatory about it. host: 1 vote for present. why did they go that way? guest: senator hatch of voted present. it beats me why he did. you either vote yes or no. there is a rumor that he did not believe in the filibuster.
1:06 pm
if you do not believe in the filibuster, you should probably vote yes. republican leadership was actively whipping. that would be the reason. of the people who voted to block it, one was center collins -- senator collins from the northeast. also, senator johanns from nebraska, who was one of senator hagel's colleagues from nebraska. host: what happens from here in terms of having a defense secretary? guest: i think the white house is irritated. democrats are irritated. you saw that on the floor multiple times when you saw
1:07 pm
senator reid railing against republicans and their decision to do this. it does not look a great. it sends a message to the world our senate is so dysfunctional that it refuses to confirm one of its own. 11 days from now, there will be a defense secretary, and it will be final. host: meredith shiner, thank you so much. we're asking you what you think about this turn of developments. senate republicans have blocked the chuck hagel nomination. it will proceed in 11 days' time, when harry reid set the next vote. here is a statement from the white house --
1:08 pm
as we go on, we will hear from republicans about why they voted the way they did. we will read some more in the news. but he would brandon has a say in ohio, a republican column. good morning. caller: i live in the north- central part of ohio. i believe that the republicans did the correct thing by mounting this will not to proceed. it is very frustrating for somebody like me to see the majority leader harry reid, on the senate floor and give ashe deal -- come up on the senate floor and give a temper tantrum. i do not believe the president
1:09 pm
has the right to have his defense secretary affirmed. it is the senate's job to affirm the nominee. if republican senators want to vote no, that is their choice. the majority leader should not shamed the republicans into voting yes because he thinks that is the correct thing to do. host: what do you make of the reporter we just talked to, mentioning that he may get confirmed in two weeks' time? does that change your opinion? caller: i think there is more time to review his record. you had two days since he was approved by the armed services committee. i do have concerns about his record on nuclear weapons with iraq. -- with iran. senator reid said he thinks iran
1:10 pm
should not have a nuclear weapon. his concern about north korea. clearly his record in the past points otherwise. i think it is important to choose somebody who's concerned about these serious threats, more than chuck hagel has shown. host: from north carolina, on the democrats line. caller: i think republicans did the right thing. i generally do not accept anything they do, because i think they are totally dysfunctional, but in this instance, i am concerned about chuck hagel as a defense minister. he has shown a whole flip-flop on his decisions, when he was interviewed by the republicans. his refusal to divulge investments concerns me.
1:11 pm
his views on israel -- i do not think he is a good choice. i think this is the one time republicans have smacked it right on the nail. host: let's take a look at one of the republicans who spoke on the floor yesterday. lindsey gramm, of south carolina. >> there are very uncomfortable things about this nomination, but having said that, unless something new comes out, we should proceed to a vote up or down, and i'm willing to invoke cloture, because as senator mccain said, the weekend. it will give us a chance to answer these questions. -- the week period will give us a chance to answer these questions. there was a speech by senator hagel, and one of his aides, posted based on his notes, what
1:12 pm
he said on the web site. senator hagel said the united states state department was an extension of the israeli government. things like that are unnerving. there is at least one speech he gave that he did not report that we think there is a copy of that we may get in the next few days. that is why i should -- i would oppose cloture today. i will vote for it after the recess. host: senator lindsey gramm of south carolina. joe is on our independent line. caller: i have interest in giving you a call because i have been doing research on the government. at this time, i have to publicize to the world that the government has committed an act of tyranny. they are doing what they should -- -- they are not doing what they should be done -- be doing
1:13 pm
for the sake of our people. and this time to play hardball against these individuals were shown in the past 80 years who have not been in the better interest of our children. that means 300 million of us need to get really involved in our government and participate. these guys do not care about this. history is showing it. the congress and senate -- this is why the federalists, james madison, set up the federalist act -- the new that this would transpire. -- they knew that this would transpire. these loopholes that congress is pushing past and pushing back, they are never going to truly do it for the better interests of the people. the people need to truly wake up.
1:14 pm
we are seeing these guys getaway -- get away with an act of tyranny. >> all of this live on our video library at >> good afternoon, thank you for being here. from a vote on the floor. republicans voted to adorn. now we have four days left to avoid the across-the-board cuts. this month the republicans are engaged in some early march madness. they are playing games with our economy, with jobs, they are playing games with their
1:15 pm
investments -- with our investments in the future. and it is just not right. the jobs, stability, and security for the middle class, that the president was so eloquent about in his address, that hangs in the balance. the last thing republicans should do is kick off another recess to avert an manufactured crisis. the manufacturer of the crisis, and then before us try to avert a crisis, they go on a nine-day recess. why? people inside and outside the congress are saying a simple message -- no deal, no break. we should be here. democrats are about absolution. republicans are about sequestered. we want a balanced approach, revenue and gross, to create
1:16 pm
jobs and reduce -- revenue and growth, create jobs and reduce the deficits. to recess now index uncertainty into the economy, markets, consumer confidence trick is not right. we are here to tell you once again about that. i am pleased to yield to our distinguished democratic whip who had some words to sit on the house floor earlier. mr. hoyer? >> not quite as animatedly, but two weeks from today if congress fails to act and not the republican policy, the republican policy of sequestration will take effect. sequestration is a dangerous and irrational policy, or, as leader policy said, cutting across the board without reference to priority level.
1:17 pm
it will have bad days the -- devastating effects on our national security and economic recovery. thousands of americans will lose its their jobs or be furloughed, including teacher's, researchers, law enforcement agents, military contractors. everyone should be clearer that sequestration is a republican policy, and it is a bad policy. on july 19, to us 11, to the 29 republicans, 98% of their caucus, voted for the cut, cap, and balance bill that approached sequestration as an alternative to cutting spending in a rational and balanced way. when the american people here to something that president obama wanted to do, they ought to know that is not true, appeared. this is a republican policy, included in their bill, that the offer july 11, 2011, before there was any discussion between
1:18 pm
mr. obama and mr. boehner to avoid the debt limit being violated and having america's credit undermined. that is when it was brought up because it was republican policy and that was maybe part of a compromise which it ended up being. 222 republicans voted today, 96% of the caucus, to go home, to go home for a week without a way to turn off the sequestered. they are once again walking away from the american people. you may remember when unemployment insurance was at rest, i said they were walking away from 6 million people. they walked away from middle- class tax cuts. i assume that when they say this, in advertising their adjournment resolution, they called it rules resolution prohibiting democratic
1:19 pm
grandstanding on the house floor. not only with and not put mr. van hollen's the decision on the floor two weeks ago, not put it on the floor this week, they will not even open the for the discussion to the representatives of the american people. i assume that grandstanding they are referring to is when we demanded that the address unemployment insurance and prevent a middle-class tax increase. republicans would have us return to our districts with nothing to show our constituents, notwithstanding the fact we have been here for six weeks this year. who are deeply secured about how the sequester will make their lives more difficult and their communities less safe. our country is less safe, and our communities are less safe. that is irresponsible, and we urge them to stand to the house in session. where: on for them to stay and work with us in pursuit of a
1:20 pm
balanced solution to which mr. van hollen will address. yesterday senate democrats offered an alternative plan that is balanced and will turn off the sequester. if nancy pelosi were the speaker of this house and i were the majority leader, sequester would not happen. representative chris van hollen of the budget committee offered a representative. speaker boehner and leader cantor, ought to allow a compane to the floor. the majority is under the influence of a faction of radical projector's of common sense. the american people ought to send us a message and to house republicans, no deal, no break. now i now want to yield to mr. van hollen. >> q. not only did the republicans in
1:21 pm
the house proposed the idea of sequester as a policy before it was ever in the budget control act, but when the budget control act was passed, you remember speaker boehner saying he got 90% of what he wanted. now they are getting the sequester that they called for. the tea party republicans went on national television the other day, senator rand paul, cheering on the idea of a sequester right after the president had said let's avoid the sequester to a balanced approach. the president wants to avoid it, tea party caucus in the house and elsewhere cheering on the idea of sequestered. what are the consequences? according to the nonpartisan independent cbo, if we do not avoid the sequester between march 1 and the end of this year, 750,000 americans will not have jobs that otherwise would have. it will cost us 750,000 jobs, according to the congressional
1:22 pm
budget office. to put that in perspective, that is the number of jobs created from october of last year through january of this year. the congressional budget office says if we will have once last the last economic growth this year if it goes through. you would think republican colleagues would join us in staying here right now to prevent that from happening. now, in the house, leader pelosi and my colleagues here, which presented a plan for times to avoid the sequestered for the year, and yet achieved the same amount of long-term deficit reduction without losing 750,000 jobs through a combination of targeted cuts as well as the elimination of a lot of tax breaks for special interests and for very wealthy people. and our republican colleagues have repeatedly denied us the opportunity to even vote on that, and was said, now want to leave town without a chance to vote on its. enate day the scented
1:23 pm
democrats put forward a plan that includes the buffet role, that ensures folks who work for people like mr. buffett' did not have to pay higher tax rate and people who make $2 million a year. by eliminating a lot of these special breaks, but making sure -- there is a limit of how you can take advantage of the street which included the elimination of direct payments to access of subsidies. the senate did that as well. we have a provision will companies. the senate has instead adopted a provision that starting in 2015 would in a measured way reduce defense spending. we can embrace a framework as well. , as an alternative going forward. the bottom line is as we gather
1:24 pm
here today is that house democrats and senate democrats, and the president of the united states are all 100% united in coming together with an alternative that would prevent 750,000 americans from losing their jobs starting january 1, and an alternative that achieves the same amount of ddeficit reduction in a period of time. while we are here to do the work, we are united behind a plan to prevent that kind of massive job loss, our republicans are heading back home and not doing the people's business. with that i am pleased to hand it over to the ranking member of the appropriations committee, who really has focused on the terrible impact of these cuts will have come across the board. >> it is no secret to anyone that the impending sequestration poses a huge threat to our economy and our national
1:25 pm
security. it is no secret that time is running out for us to do something, and we know what to do, to make sure that we prevent these catastrophic cuts. the house republican leadership must keep the house in session so that we can get something done. we should not be leaving town with the impending sequestration. sequestration would impose an additional $1.20 trillion and cuts across the board to an issue as the democrats and republicans care about. in every part of our country, in every district, there is going to be paying from these cuts. a. george mason university study indicates that 2.1 million jobs could be lost if we do not act to stop the sequester. this week the appropriations committee put out and report, and it makes it very clear, that
1:26 pm
these cuts would make it harder for middle-class families to get ahead, furloughs of air traffic controllers, food inspectors, border patrol, cuts to job training, federal education assistance, reduced investments in safe drinking water, medical research, diminished military readiness, and security. to sequester will make it harder to train for the jobs you need to keep -- or keep the when you had. it will make it harder to keep enough teachers in our class srooms, and it will make it harder to invest in our infrastructure. the clock is ticking. it is clicking, ticking toward march 1. republicans are just wasting time, playing a blame game and taking a recess from session. we need to pass a balanced
1:27 pm
solution like we have discussed today. we have to do it now. we cannot leave town and just delay. mr. becera? >> thank you, nita. if you have been watching, you're beginning to see something that is no longer out of the ordinary. yesterday, for the first time in our nation's history, the republicans decided to filibuster a president's nominee the department of defense as secretary of defense. a patriot, a wounded vietnam veteran, a republican was denied a chance by the republicans to have a full vote to become the secretary of defense, chuck heald. the same week, the senate passed by a majority of 78 to 22, the
1:28 pm
violence against women act, and in the house republicans refused to let the american people have a vote on protecting women from domestic violence. today republicans in the house decided to cut the pay of the very same people that you heard ms. lowey name to you, law- enforcement personnel, health and safety inspectors, and as the personnel. today republicans voted to cut their pay, to pay for tax cuts to the very wealthy, to get subsidies for big oil companies going, things that republicans refuse to eliminate, those types of subsidies and tax loopholes. and so i say to you all, welcome to the new normal for the tea party republicans who control the congress. this is no longer an exception.
1:29 pm
it is the rule for republicans. 73% of house republicans voted in 2011 for the republican- inspired sequester, and as was pointed out, boater himself said he got about 98% of what he wanted, and he said i am pretty happy. now 222 house republicans to vote for a nine-day recess when we are just 13 calendar days and only four legislative days away from seeing the devastating cuts under the so-called sequester to defect. remember, republicans were for the sequestered before they were against it, before they decided to do nothing about it. democrats have a simple message -- this is no time to cut and run. but stay and get our work done. yeild to theet me lei vice-chair of the caucus. >> thank you, xavier.
1:30 pm
when american business men and women and families go through tough times, they cannot decide that is the proper time to take time off from doing work. in fact that is when they work even harder. and that is the message to my republican colleagues, that they need to hear. this is not the time to do less big it is the time to do more. as the leader mentioned before, with just four legislative days left before this congressional- made, republican congressional- may crisis, the american people expect us to act and not sit on our hands and do nothing. the american people are tired of the crisis making here in washington. they are tired of that creation of an additional cliffs. they want to see us accomplish something, get things done. this is not the time for the republican congress to leave town to sit on their hands, to go back to their districts, to
1:31 pm
the observation decks so they can observe the fruits of their destructive behavior. that is what they're going to be doing. with that i turn the microphone over to steve israel. >> that you, joe. briefly, by sending us into recess, the republicans may be sending us back toward a recession. 750,000 jobs will be lost as a result of their actions. there are consequences to their dysfunction, and their chronic chaos. sometimes an act of a natural disaster devastates an economy, sometimes an act of war it devastates an economy pick in this case the acts of the republican majority will devastate our economy. 750,000 job losses would devastate our economy. the security of the middle-class will be threatened. extreme events at our control devastate our economy.
1:32 pm
in this case, the extremism of and out of control republican majority will devastate our economy, and that is unacceptable. my final point is this -- i water my people we democrats when we were in the majority, we did not have sequestration. which republicans there will be sequestration. when we are back in the secret -- in the majority, we will not have sequestration. for the defense workers who will get pink slips and a food inspectors looking at layoffs, i want to remind them that those pink slips have been brought to you by this republican chronic chaos. we have a plan. they have partisanship. we have a compromise. they have got a recess. it is time for them to get to work to avoid this crisis. thank you.
1:33 pm
>> i thank my colleagues for their estimates today, all of their hard work going into reaching a compromise. mr. van hollen, we thank you on the budget committee for the work you have done there, and congresswoman, ranking member, for pointing out so clearly what the consequences are of this. as i was listening to my colleagues, and the word sequester and superstition kept coming up, i was thinking most people in america do not know what that word means. what it means is unemployment. sequester equales jobs loss. no question about that. why would you want to engage in job loss when instead we could come together for a solution that is reasonable, balanced, bipartisan that will promote growth with jobs, with
1:34 pm
responsible cuts, with additional revenue. we can get through this. why not? why not? we should not be going home. we should in the house be working. , because as has been set, the beauty of what is going on with mr. van hollen's committee on the democratic side and under the leadership of patty murray in the senate, the proposals are divided evenly between cuts and revenue, and among the cuts, they are divided, the spending cuts, are divided between domestic and defense. we have a little more revenue in our bill to even things off from the house side. what is important to know is that we in the house should be here, because when you have revenue bills, when you have spending bills like that, you must begin in the house.
1:35 pm
anybody who knows the constitution knows that that power of the person -- a power of the purse and revenue begins to the house residence -- representatives. when the speaker says i want to wait until the senate acts, that means i am not want to do anything, because we must begin, we must begin. again, that's not give new meaning to the term of march madness, which right now is associated great fun, competition, and we saw the the other the it is not madness that springs from us going to recess that could lead us into recession as mr. israel has said. i know my colleagues will be presenting any questions you may have. >> the democrats in the senate,
1:36 pm
giving them a pass on this, why so? >> it all has to begin in the house. the bill has to begin in house. >> are couple numbers -- zero the number of house of as have done anything to do the sequester in the contest, they have done nothing in the 113th congress. senate democrats have put a plan on the table, which is a good plan, to avoid the sequestered. we're here in washington all united, and they're going home. i am sure we can get harry reid, he will come back as the speaker will join with us in supporting the plan that the house and senate democrats and the president's support to avoid the sequester and avoid 750,000 americans losing their jobs. we will do it. they put a plan on their table, we put a plant on the table,
1:37 pm
house of public have put zero plans on the table. >> they always talk about what they did in the last congress. those bills are gone. they keep pointing to them as if somehow magically there want to be resurrected. if they want to resurrect them, put them on the floor and let's vote. >> is often talked about sequestration and we have heard so much about the sequestered. will you lay out areas that are most important to democrats that the sequestered will impact? >> i will defer to our budget chair because he has worked with all of our caucus on this, but i know other members will be talking about it, too common and that is where the rubber meets the road in the preparations committee. that we say, since you mentioned education them when they talk about cutting education, it is a
1:38 pm
very mindless thing to do. speaking of mines and education, nothing brings more money to the treasury that educating the american people, early childhood, k-12, postgraduate, lifetime learning -- nothing brings more money to the treasury. in addition to the fact that all innovation begins in the classroom, under national command of its -- and our national competitive this, it brings more money to the treasury to reduce the deficit, for one. investors and biomedical research -- whole world is in competition on this, and we are going to cut our investments for medical research, to grants that are put outside the national institutes of health as well as
1:39 pm
what is happening there? that is really getting the advantage to other countries over our spirit i will yield to the congress woman because she listed some of these, and you mentioned those, so i wanted to speak to those. >> thank you, madam leader. i wanted to follow up with your comments about research. a major new york hospital came to me and said, did you have sequester? we get $185 million for research, into cancer, alzheimer's, autism, and on and on, not only is this critical research that saves lives, but this is economic development. and these kinds of institutions exist all over the country. so you are going to take steps backward in the important research that we have to do, and, by the way, this saves not
1:40 pm
a lives, but money, when you can find cures for these illnesses. but is jobs, people come hard- working people. i was at the energy and water committee the other day, where there is some bipartisanship, and it was clear to me that it did not matter, because they were going to be cuts in our research labs around the country, and this is closely allied with the defense industry as well. we're doing important research that supports the defense established, and again, it is making amazing advances nuclear issues, much more than i could discuss with you today. look at what the labs are doing around the country. and education -- we know, as the leader mentioned, that it is so critical to get our young people in pre-k, to make sure
1:41 pm
they're getting the education they need said they did not fall behind, because if you fall behind at the beginning, then what happens later on? this sequester this not make any sense at all. we should be sitting down as appropriators and working it out, and i must tell you that there are many people the republican side of the aisle, on the appropriations committee, with whom i have worked for years, believe in regular order, they would like to sit down and work it out, but this tea party crowd wants to go home and all they're saying is sequestered, sequester, sequestered. i can tell you there are a dozen more examples, you mentioned air traffic controllers -- is critical. food and safety. what about the food that comes into our country? it is really serious. it creates chaos in dozens of
1:42 pm
industries and run the country, and the bottom line is is a deterrent to our economic future. i wanted to mention one other example of an elaborate on that, and that is infrastructure. we all believe we have to deal with the deficit. we all believe and we had it in writing that we need a long-term plan to deal with the deficit. but right now, as president obama says, we have to put people to work. our roads, our bridges are crumbling, so we are right to cut into shark shark at this critical time? this is madness. which should be working, stay here, and we could work it out together. the people that are paying their dues their obeisance to the two- party should be isolated, and the rational people on both sides of the aisle should work together and get this done. , i want to add something briefing to that, chad, does one of the most important crisis
1:43 pm
that created is the inability of a people who are -- people who are receiving this service is as or working for government have any sense of confidence that tomorrow will be a stable tomorrow and they can do the work that they are expected to do. it is almost incalculable, the undermining of confidence and good order of getting a job done and the cost that that will hit require additional late to the american people. totally irresponsible. >> if i could emphasize one point on the deficit reduction, the proposal we put forward in the house, house democrats, and the senate democrats, achieved the same amount of deficit reduction as the sequester would do, but they achieved it without losing 750,000 jobs.
1:44 pm
why? because you have targeted at over a time to get rid of these payments to agribusinesses, which serve no useful purpose right now. we asked a very high income earners, people paying more than $2 million a year, to pay a 30% effective tax rate said they cannot take advantage disproportionately of all these tax preferences that are in the code, and so what republicans are saying they would rather cut all that right now at the expense of 200 fit -- to under 2000 american jobs than get rid of these excessive subsidies for agribusinesses are asking to -- people making $2 million years to pay more. we get the same amount of deficit reduction in a smart way without the to under 50,000 americans losing their jobs. the other thing is there are going to be federal employees who perform important services for the american people at n.i.h. and others, they will be
1:45 pm
furloughed, but the 750,000 jobs i'm talking about, that is not federal employees. those are non-federal employees, americans throughout the rest of the economy. yes, you will see a huge disruption in government services and all the negative implications and our investments in our future. on top of that you will see 750,000 americans is their jocks, according to the cbo. -- their jobs, according to the cbo. >> chairman of the appropriations committee said [indiscernible] they are doing that in the next couple of weeks to avoid a government shutdown. when democrats support a c.r. that subject to this aggression? >> you know the details that knowc.r. would make changes in
1:46 pm
the defense bill, and leave the others alone. now, that negative is, not making any adjustments in n.i.h., who massacred the bill, air-traffic control, etc. however, it could go over to the senate. the senate could make important changes, and then come back here and let's see if we can get some bipartisan working together. it is not clear exactly what would happen, and then as i understand it, and you have all reported it, first we looked at it and said this is an interesting idea, let's explore it, but see if we can work something out. but after this happens, they're still planning to do the sequester. it would be the c.r. attached to the defense bill that would go
1:47 pm
to the senate, it could be made better, with barbara mikulski and senator shelby, and then they still want to do the sequester. i want to close with one other important thing. the budget control act already .ut $1.50 trillion dollar it is important that the discretionary part of our budget is the lowest percentage of the economy come of gdp, that it has been in 45 years. so when we talk about cutting jobs, when we talk about destroying the economy, this is real. these are not statistics. the rp -- these are people in every district in our country that are going to be hit by this. that is why this plan really not a total solution at all, and i think what our chairman said before is critical. >> let me emphasize one thing. i talked about the 750,000 jobs lost.
1:48 pm
that does not change that at all. you are still taking this big, deep cuts within a short period of time. so again, the independent nonpartisan cbo says when you suck that much investment out of the country in a short period of time, americans are going to lose jobs. the sequestration element, the magnitude of the cuts, will remain the same under that plan, so door total job loss number will remain the same under that plan. from the point of view of the economy, you are rearranging the chairs on the deck of the titanic. the titanic so goes down, reducing economic growth by full third this year. >> let me make a comment. i am not sure that what you posited is correct. in trying to get republican votes for not going over the cliff, as i understand it, the
1:49 pm
speaker made two promises. one was that ryan would present a budget that would balance within 10 years. as you know, his initial budget was 2040 or their doubts to balance. that is going to become if he does that, he will savage the economy, as well as government and national security and economic security. and the second promise, as i understand, he made to the rnc, was that they would mark operation bills to the 985 been dollar figure, which was the budget figure them you recall we had a foot on, we voted present, they were worried that the budget would prevail and they switch boats said they could defeat the budget, because they thought 985 was too radical. it is, but it is my understanding that speaker boehner make it representation to the rsc at the time of the cliff " we would mark the 985
1:50 pm
figure, not the 1043. >> he is talking about the c.r. attached to the defense. -- defense bill. after that they will bring it down to the level that is avoiding that. it is not a loan. >> i do understand, but the c.r. 1at >> this sequestration is going to take place, according to them. they made that decision. >> and there is a rumor that one of the other promises the speaker made to his members is that if they voted for previous legislation or if they allow it to come before, because then 18, they would
1:51 pm
let sequestration go through. sequestration is a bad idea. weather doing any c.r., omnibus, but that also we can go into the mode of the ways and means folks up here want to talk about about some of vacation and fairness in a tax code and we have to get to that place and do that. people -- what is this about? we all want to reduce the deficit. in order to reduce the deficit, we have to cut spending and we have to obtain increased revenue. in order for us to have growth, growth with jobs. democrats have supported $1.60 trillion in cuts, when $0.20 trillion in the budget control
1:52 pm
act, another $400 billion in other actions taken in the last congress last year, when $0.60 trillion. the whole idea was to have it balanced. and the revenue side, we had $600 billion. what is that, three to one in favor of cuts. i would hope that you in your messaging to the american people make it clear that we have made cuts, we have passed bills for those cuts. but we want to see more in terms of the revenue side to make this happen. one way to go is the buffet role, but says that everyone should be paying, the people making over $2 million a year, would pay 30%, by closing some loopholes, making them not be available beyond 30%.
1:53 pm
the republicans are saying we do not want to touch tax breaks, tax giveaways, the big oil. would rather you cut pell grants but the same amount. i do not think that is a reflection of the values of the american people. but the record should be clear as to where we stand today. we have voted for $1.60 trillion. the other side of it, $600 billion in revenant, and no more tax cuts for the wealthy said the republicans, to get out of meals on wheels, food safety, education, head start, the safety of our neighborhoods, the education of our children about the safety of our food, the defense of our country, our national security. it is just not right. i think that was it. >> to rephrase what frank's question was, i think we can all
1:54 pm
set -- accept the fact that the republicans cannot keep the government open, they will just not have 218 votes, no matter how they do things. would democrats, the devil's bargain would be to either allow the government to shut at the end of march or pass, or approve a c.r. and leaves in place the sequester -- >> i appreciate your question, and a good faith in which it has been offered. the republicans are poised to shut down government. the republicans are poised to let sequestration go forward, which is sequestration -- you know what that word means and what it means to the american people -- and a plumbing, no jobs -- unemployment, no jobs, take us to recession. not an exact latin translation, but that is what it means.
1:55 pm
so we have no idea what the proponents of mr. rogers' proposal is, that has the backing of the leadership. let's see what is proposed and when. but the fact this is their obstruction, and we have made many cuts and we stand ready to make war, but we are not on to destroy our opportunity for growth in our country, growth with jobs, because at the end of the day, revenue comes from those jobs. if you're interested in deficit reduction, you will need more revenue. at me say this one other thing, so curious, so curious that in the eight years of the bush administration, while the bulk of this deficit was being amassed, you did not hear them say boo,who, whoo, any deficit hawk bird's eye view could come up with.
1:56 pm
[laughter] it was an endangered species, the deficit hawk. i also think it is in port drummer this, and this is the last thing i want to say today. i understand this -- the republican party in the congress, as opposed to other republican party in the country, and that is why i say, republicans cannot take back your country, is dominated by ideologues, and they will forever want to reduce taxes on special interests, make cuts in the education of our children and the care of our seniors and the rest, because they do not believe in government. so shrink tax revenue and make serious cuts that undermine our economic growth, that undermined the education and our children, undermine the creation of jobs, but -- and bless their
1:57 pm
hearts -- and act upon their beliefs, and that is what they believe, and that is what this fight is about. so let's not skirt and around the edges here. let's understand what is fundamental between the two parties here. yes, we will reduce the deficit, yes, we need to make cuts to do that, we need more revenue, we need more great pick anything, my colleagues? thank you. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2013] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] >> the house today passed a bill that condemned north korea's recent nuclear test. they will be back on monday, february 25 pick is a week that began with a state of the union address on tuesday. the preston on the road this week after that speech, talking about some of his proposals.
1:58 pm
today, he is in chicago, speaking at the hyde park academy, talking about economic proposals, in particular, his proposal to raise the minimum wage to $9 an hour. we will have coverage in just under two hours at 3:45 eastern on c-span. >> i think the women themselves in many cases were interested in politics, i had no vehicle to express that in their own lives. they were attracted to men who were going to become politically active or already politically active. they met each of them i find intriguing, probably half of them in particular, as i say because they are so obscure. i think half of these women probably would be almost totally unrecognizable to most men and women on the street. >> this presidents day, c-span
1:59 pm
series, "firstew present ladies'." in a first of its kind project for television, season one begins monday night at 9:00 eastern and pacific on c-span, c-span radio, and, and watch the program earlier in >> we have a habit of glossing over president. we have decided people are bald eagle and they should be treated as symbols of the country. that means is you have a -- you have a smoothing over of rough edges. there is a feeling among modern presidents

Public Affairs
CSPAN February 15, 2013 9:00am-2:00pm EST

News News/Business.

TOPIC FREQUENCY Us 53, North Korea 40, California 40, America 29, Iran 28, United States 26, Afghanistan 22, Mr. Cummings 21, Maryland 21, Florida 14, Mr. Royce 13, Hagel 12, South Korea 11, Israel 11, Obama 9, Mr. Hoyer 9, U.s. 9, Taliban 9, Washington 8, Mr. Engel 7
Network CSPAN
Duration 05:00:00
Scanned in San Francisco, CA, USA
Source Comcast Cable
Tuner Channel 17 (141 MHz)
Video Codec mpeg2video
Audio Cocec ac3
Pixel width 704
Pixel height 480
Sponsor Internet Archive
Audio/Visual sound, color

disc Borrow a DVD of this show
info Stream Only
Uploaded by
TV Archive
on 2/15/2013